What's wrong with a user posting different and independent answers to a question?

Question: When I posted different answers to a question, some people seemed to frown upon it.
Is $G/pG$ is a $p$-group?
Comment: I don't think there's anything wrong with posting as separate answers, if the strategies taken in the different answers are "sufficiently different". Unfortunately, "sufficiently different" is somewhat subjective...
Comment: Like you were already informed: this is looked upon as "reputation farming", a way to game the system. Some people see it as the same as trying to get paid twice for doing the work once. Seriously though: the users already quite clearly explained their reasons to you in the comments. You seem to be just unwilling to listen and appear to be just shopping for second opinions...
Comment: @MakotoKato I am only implying that fewer people trust your good faith. Surely you were already aware of this.
Comment: @Makoto: I refer you to [my earlier comment](http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/6525/whats-wrong-with-a-user-posting-different-and-independent-answers-to-a-question#comment23116_6525). I'll excuse myself from this conversation now unless you ask a question whose answer I haven't already provided.
Comment: @Makoto: I quote: "Some people see it as the same as trying to get paid twice for doing the work once." Or, as Cameron Blue described for you: "Trying to get more reputation by posting several answers [to the same question]." I am starting to get the feeling of déjà vu about the shape this conversation is taking on.
Comment: I think I've posted more than one answer to the same question a few times.  No one's complained to me about it.
Comment: @MakotoKato : hence J.M. wrote 'Unfortunately, "sufficiently different" is somewhat subjective.' The people who voted/commented may disagree with you.
Comment: What exactly are "independent answers"?
Comment: My experience has been the same as @MichaelHardy's. I wonder if part of the difference is that fewer people trust Makoto Kato's good faith.
Comment: @MJD Are you implying that there is a good reason for people not to trust my good faith?
Comment: @WillieWong Let me ask the same question I asked robjohn.
What about posting an answer to a question which someone else already answered? There is nothing wrong with doing so, as long as they are sufficiently different?
Comment: @MichaelGreinecker An answer which does not depend on other answers. For example, it is not an improvement of another answer.
Comment: @J.M. I think the three answers to the linked question are very different in the strategies.
Comment: @WillieWong In that case, what's wrong with posting several answers which are not sufficiently different?
Comment: @WillieWong Please define reputation farming and explain why it's wrong.
Comment: @WillieWong I don't see why it's trying to get paid twice for doing the work once.
They are essentially different answers.
Answer: Doctor, it hurts when I do this
You're getting some push-back for something you're doing on the site. The feedback from other members prompted you to ask this question, but even prior to that the software itself gave you a bit of resistance when you went to add that second (and third) answer:

Are you sure you want to add another answer?
You could use the edit link to refine and improve your existing answer, instead.

Of course, it is allowed - there are times when it's very useful - but they're not common; generally, you do want to just edit your existing answer.
If you want feedback on your actions, explain their purpose
Let's ignore the abstract question here. As robjohn and Bill have pointed out in their answers, there are occasions when multiple answers are useful, and (many more) occasions where you really just want one answer. But that's not what you asked. You linked to your multiple answers, and a cursory examination makes one thing blatantly obvious:
You aren't making any effort to explain why one answer might be preferable to another.
There are often multiple ways to solve a problem. One of the big advantages of the Stack Exchange system is that, when posted as separate answers, the most generally useful solution can be ranked higher by those reading than the rest. However, this falls apart when there is effectively no difference, or when the difference is subtle. So... Which is it? You must've had a reason for bothering to write multiple responses - yet you didn't bother to include that reasoning in the answers themselves. It's almost as though you expect others to do this for you...
Asking - and answering - in good faith
Indeed, this meta question suffers from the same problem. Right before asking it, you posted this comment below one of your answers, in response to specific criticism of your answering strategy:

@CameronBuie Maybe someone would down vote for a false proof. This is only an example. There are other confusing factors. As for your last comment, I didn't get any reps. Anyway, what's wrong with separate answers? – Makoto Kato

Uh, yeah, maybe that would happen. Is that what you hoped would happen? Being unsure of one or more of your proofs, you posted them separately so as to elicit specific critiques of each? Then why not say that? And when raising the discussion of a specific scenario here, one already under discussion elsewhere, why not summarize your already-stated rationale for doing what you're doing, rather than leaving folks to debate the general case? There's a time and a place for everything - but what you're really concerned with here is, was this the right time and place for multiple answers?
Frankly, I think you would garner a lot more sympathy - or at least understanding - if you were a bit more transparent as to your intent when you engage in activities that are uncommon on this site. Don't assume that others will assume good intentions on your part, and you may find they're a bit more likely to do just that in the future.
Comment: @Makoto: To reiterate what has been told here, and countless times before, you cannot expect to be using the site in your *own* way without upsetting people. The fact that people tell you that something is not usually done means that you should *probably* justify it, at least at first. Furthermore, it is sometimes good to try and understand the other side and not just claim that this is just their opinion and you can do whatever you want. The **main** thing about a community is that it is based on several people, and note the similarity between "*community*" and "*communication*".
Comment: @Bill: regardless of how *other* instances have been received, it's indisputable that *this* case produced an unacceptable amount of confusion - both on the part of the asker, and the other readers. No matter how acceptable a technique might be *in theory*, when it doesn't work in practice it's time to revisit your assumptions.
Comment: Way I see it, here's what Makoto seems to have trouble comprehending: if he wants to use the site in his own peculiar way, he ought to not be surprised that other users are reacting in their own peculiar ways to whatever he's producing...
Comment: @Bill: There's a big qualitative difference between lots of users each engaging in a little edgy behavior and a single poster engaging in a lot of edgy behavior.
Comment: @Makoto: You were told many times before that your actions have cost your reputation (not the one in points, but rather the one you cannot quantify) as a member of this community. You cannot possibly be surprised that people still tend to be slightly more rigid with you than they would be with others. You have to work very hard to repair that broken reputation of yours, and by arguing with people constantly you're not helping yourself.
Comment: @Makoto: The first thing you did after joining this site was to use it wrong. The next thing was to insist that you are using it right. Only after so many people gave up on trying you agreed to some mitigating solution, but you still insisted on doing things your way. Now say I come to visit your house, and I walk in with boots full of mud. I mess up your entire flat and leave muddy prints all over the sofa. You may be angry and I will insist this is just your opinion that I shouldn't do that. But will you invite me *again*? Especially if I won't apologize and promise to behave? I doubt that.
Comment: @Asaf I agree that it would be helpful to give some hint as to the motivation for separating the answers. But I don't think it should be required. I have posted multiple answers occasionally as have many other users, and not always with such motivation (often it is "clear"). But I don't recall any of those answers being criticized like MK's. Nor do I recall even a single instance where those multiple answers raised any doubts in my mind that they were posted to farm rep. That's not to say that might never occur. Rather, I think we need to judge such matters on a case-by-case basis.
Comment: @Makoto: Be careful about treating all negative feedback as evidence of some sort of witch-hunt though; I hardly think everyone involved here sits around waiting for you to do something so they can pounce on you. Yeah, there are probably folks who take an unnecessarily dim view of your efforts, but there are just as surely folks who simply care about the site and its community and wish to see problems resolved.
Comment: "You aren't making any effort to explain why one answer might be preferable to another."

Because that's irrelevant to the title question.
As the title shows, I took it for granted that the three answers are essentially different.
I also took it for granted that showing different approaches to a problem is a pedagogically good thing.
Comment: If you were also the one voting on them and questioning their separation, then your assumptions would suffice. However, not everyone shares those assumptions. When you encounter clear evidence that this is the case, it becomes necessary to mention them explicitly.
Comment: @Makato: on the question with Mariano's answers you linked to? No close votes, and all the comments are visible. On the question you answered, and linked to here? Yes, there was a lot of confusion, which calmed down after you explained yourself. Which is my point: when you encounter confusion, *explain what you're doing* - so many problems can be solved with just a bit of effort put into communication!
Comment: @Makoto: If the first purpose of answering is to help the asker, then multiple helpful answers are not a bad thing. But if the asker struggles to understand one answer, another answer which also confuses him does not improve matters. Remember your comment about the pedagogical value of answers which present alternate solutions? This is predicated on the student understanding the solutions presented; without that, they might as well be noise. More noise is never an improvement.
Comment: @Makoto: I looked at a thread where Mariano posted many answers. My initial impression was rather negative. The difference now between my response to his and my response to yours is that Mariano has enough content that it would take a fair bit of effort to make up my mind how I really feel about it, and do not expect any utility from doing so. Your answers, OTOH, were short, sparse, and similar, and would have made sense as a single answer or even just one or more comments, and they came from a poster who has a long history of pushing the boundaries of what people consider acceptable behavior.
Comment: @Shog9 That's only because of the OP's recent history. Had it been any other author, probably we would not be having this meta discussion - just like we did not in the past.
Comment: @Hurkyl But there *are* other users who have multi-answered more than MK has. Also, given the votes here, it should be clear that not everyone agrees that multi-answering is "edgy behavior". As far as I know we have never had any case where it was even remotely clear that multi-answering was done for rep, so the whole matter seems to be much ado about nothing. No doubt that it *could* be abused. But it doesn't seem to have ever occurred here, not even once.
Comment: @Shog9 "Bill: regardless of how other instances have been received, it's indisputable that this case produced an unacceptable amount of confusion - both on the part of the asker, and the other readers."
I wonder why there were no complaints to Mariano who posted separate answers to a question.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/105231/show-that-there-is-no-affine-transformation-that-takes-a-circle-to-a-hyperbola-i
Comment: @Shog9 "Bill: regardless of how other instances have been received, it's indisputable that this case produced an unacceptable amount of confusion - both on the part of the asker, and the other readers."
It's because some users have ill feelings toward me for some reasons which have nothing to do with the current subject.
The following is another example that they caused much "confusion" to a thread in which I participated.
http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4936/voting-to-close-a-question-because-one-thinks-it-is-extremely-specialised
Comment: @Shog9 It's relevant in that the threads were confused by people who have ill feelings toward me for some reasons which have nothing to do with the threads. You can find the same names in the both threads.
Comment: @Makoto: I find your name in both these threads. I also find Bill's name in both these threads. I also find Hurkyl and my name. I also find Michael Greinecker's name as well Mariano participated there and was mentioned in this thread, so his name appears in both threads. Could you clarify who are the members of the secret "Anti MK" society?
Comment: @Shog9 How do you explain the asymmetry between the Mariano's case and mine?
Comment: @Makoto: the simplest explanation is that he wrote answers that were clear to the asker.
Comment: What does it have to do with complaints against separate answers?
Comment: Huh, this is actually a very level-headed answer. Why the downvotes?
Comment: If you read the answers, it's clear that they are based on different ideas. I don't think it's necessary to say so.
Comment: @J.M. This is not "his own peculiar way". There are many users who have posted multiple answers (including experienced high-rep users). If you wish to object to this then please debate the general principles - not the actions of a specific user.
Comment: @Bill, oh I certainly have posted multiple answers in some questions myself, so no need to throw that particular rock at me. What I'm saying is, it would seem that the answers being "sufficiently different" was not sufficiently justified from the viewpoint of whoever voted his answers. So, he shouldn't be so surprised. I mean, people actually had the courtesy to explain why they did what they did with respect to votes; that maybe is something to be stunned about.
Comment: @J.M. Browsing other multiple answers, I don't see *any* where the author has justified them. Do you know of any?
Comment: @Bill: I agree (at least, my first reaction is such) that generally multi-answering without comment isn't an issue, and initially I did not upvote this answer because of that. But after mulling it over, I realize the emphasis of the advice is to leave comment *when some sort of comment is needed*, and that's good advice. (I've since given +1)
Comment: @Shog9 There were deleted comments and it was once closed. Now the thread is peaceful because I brought it up on meta and many people agreed and sympathized with me.
Comment: @Shog9 No. I was talking about the following link.
Just like it, I brought up the problem here to make it clear.

http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4936/voting-to-close-a-question-because-one-thinks-it-i-extremely-specialised
Comment: @Makato: considerably less confusion in the comments there (and no deleted comments).
Comment: @Makoto: Not sure how that's relevant, but yes you certainly did the right thing by bringing it up for discussion on meta.
Answer: When answers legitimately take different approaches, separate answers are usually better since they each come with different direct links and comments sections.
Answer: One reason for preferring a single answer is given when you try to add another answer, which suggests refining and improving an existing answer.
The answers you gave are not especially distinct from one another. By combining them into a single answer, the relationships between them can be seen implicitly through juxtaposition -- or even better, it could be explained explicitly. The combined answer could easily be much more illuminating than three individual answers.
I imagine that the answers aren't especially distinct aggravated the negative reaction to multi-answering.
Comment: At the highest level, the theory of vector spaces over $\mathbb{F}_p$ is identical with the theory of abelian groups with exponent $p$.

--- In the situation of the post, the structure theorem for f.g. Abelian groups is the same thing as the theorem that finite-dimensional vector spaces have a basis.

--- In fact, you could swap the first sentences of (1) and (2) and still have answers at the same level of rigor as the originals.

--- Answers (1) and (3) are both just "every element has order $p$". They only look different because of the (unnecessary) argument surrounding them.
Comment: The fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups has nothing to do with the theory of vector spaces over a finite prime field. (1) is based on the former and (2) is based on the latter.
Comment: "The answers you gave are not especially distinct from one another."

(1) is based on the fundametal theorem of finitely generated abelian groups.
(2) is based on the theory of vector spaces over a finite field.
(3) is based on the Cauchy's theorem. This proof also can be applied to a non-abelian finite group all of whose elements have a prime power orders.
How come those are not especially distinct from one another?
Answer: There are various honorable reasons that one may have for posting more than one answer to a question. For example, often I am interested in judging how well-known various approaches are, so that I can use that feedback to revise my teaching methodology. This is more difficult to do if one places multiple answers in one post since then it is not clear which particular answer the votes and comments target (which, by the way, is a huge problem with votes on multiple-answers on meta).
For a concrete example, I explicitly chose not to place the well-known degree-based approach into my answer on why polynomial rings are not fields, because I sought to determine what sort of response the given universal approach would receive. The surprisingly large number of votes it received (along with the tone of the comments) helped provide further evidence to confirm my suspicion that many algebra textbooks do not effectively teach such universal ideas.
It is important to keep in mind that - in this way - the site provides useful feedback to teachers. Having sharp modular boundaries between logically independent answers serves to optimize the value of such feedback. This allows teachers to learn as well as teach, which provides much further motivation for teachers to participate. And, of course, the more teachers we have participating, the more the site will prosper.
Another reason for posting multiple answers is to draw modular boundaries between knowledge levels. Sometimes I post answers that include both elementary and advanced perspectives on topics. These combined posts often receive fewer votes than if I separate the answer into an elementary post and an advanced post. Probably this is because the advanced parts scare away those with no knowledge of the advanced topics, so they stop reading -  mistakenly believing that the entire post is too advanced.
Similarly, students may have honorable reasons for posting multiple answers in separate posts. For example, a student with two answers may be confident of the first, but may have doubts about the second answer. Thus it makes sense to post the second answer separately, so that feedback on it can be appropriately isolated. Otherwise, if both answers were combined into one post and the second answer had problems, then the combined answer might receive a mix of upvotes and downvotes, which might relay false impressions about the first answer, e.g. misleading readers into thinking that the first answer also has problems. Further, the first answer might not get elevated to the proper level of exposure, possibly leaving an inferior answer to be the highest-voted.
Generally, readers may desire to upvote some answers and downvote others, which is not possible if they are all combined into one answer.

Finally, one  tangential point is worth emphasis. Before one leaps towards accusations such as "reputation farming" etc, it is important to keep in mind that not everyone pays attention to reputation, so it may not even occur to some folks that posting multiple answers might be viewed that way. Indeed, some of us are here simply to share our knowledge of mathematics, and have been doing so for years in other forums (e.g. usenet newsgroups) where reputation plays no role. Please try to keep in mind the diversity of our community before jumping to possibly unfounded conclusions about such matters.
Comment: @Bill: I could just as easily say that a lot of tension would vanish if people stopped countering valid issues with platitudes. Problematic behavior done with good intentions is still problematic behavior. If you really want to give benefit of doubt, then assume Asaf's intent is to *actually worry about problems* rather than to be misanthropic or whatever else you are assuming, and react accordingly.
Comment: @Bill: Non-problematic behavior is non-problematic. I agree that there are differences in opinion. The part I find insulting is the implication that we shouldn't even contemplate whether behavior is problematic, because some people behave that way with good intentions. Empathy for people who engage in (possibly) problematic behavior is fine -- but don't let that cloud your judgment of the behavior. Similarly, you should have empathy for people who are actually out there trying to judge things fairly; your tangential remark is rather patronizing, and it suggests the aforementioned insult.
Comment: @Bill There is no insult among you comments *here*, but very bad wording. "Apparently, That may be true for you, but you cannot speak for others." begs to be read as Asaf being a rep-w&/%e. The remark "I suspect that, like I, most of those folks are little-motivated by rep. Instead, they are surely primarily motivated by teaching." can allude to Asaf not caring about teaching. Of course, one does not have to interpret things this way, but internet experience should teach you how to phrase things better.
Comment: There are also some people who do not care about money. Should we allow people who don't care about money to get free money as long as they need? No. It is true that some users don't care about reputation, but others can. I would hate to think that we should give a precedent case of posting multiple answers *just because* someone doesn't care about reputation (or so they say). I do agree that there *are* reasons for posting several answers, though. I haven't looked at the specified question, so I cannot tell about this one, though.
Comment: @Asaf You wrote: "Reputation is a driving force, regardless what anyone says..." That may be true for you, but you cannot speak for others. Some of our most prolific contributors  participated in sci.math for years/decades without any rep motivation whatsoever (there is no rep capability in usenet newgroups). I suspect that, like I, most of those folks are little-motivated by rep. Instead, they are surely primarily motivated by *teaching.*
Comment: That analogy is not appropriate. Multiple independent answers don't get free upvotes. Each answer still has to earn its own upvotes (or downvotes). The point of my *tangential* remark is to encourage others to show some empathy when attempting to understand the motivations of others. Some of our users are not motivated at all by the rep game, and it is essential to keep that in mind when evaluating such matters.
Comment: @Bill: Sheesh, you are such a condescending person. It is impossible to speak with you without getting angry. It is a tangential point, but I feel that you are impossible to reason, discuss or argue with. You have set your mind and *nothing* can change your opinion. I feel ashamed to have a person like you to hold *any* power within this site. I am not going to reply to your comments again here, or elsewhere.
Comment: @BillDubuque Your internet experience doesn't seem to translate to the ability to state your opinion in a way that does not offend or alienate others. The problem is exacerbated by you having a history of actually insulting other users outright.
Comment: @Bill: And I'm concerned about alienating users who would speak out with *honorable intentions* about perceived problems. Just as you (rightly) point out that such people can cause harm if they act carelessly, I assert that you are causing harm by being similarly careless (if I give you the benefit of the doubt, anyways). While these implications may not have been in your *intent*, they are present in your *words*, and it is your *words* that are the content of your answer....
Comment: .... Additionally, special care is needed for such comments, because of how commonly they are used to **bully** those who would offer objections or criticism. A lot of ill feelings arise when people are led to believe their opinions and arguments are being drowned out -- or even *vilified* -- by gratuitous warm and fuzzy sentiments.
Comment: @Makoto: If your answers are "pedagogical" why are there no explanations? Why are the answers concise and lack actual explanations? If the answers are for *future* readers (including the future OP) how would voting help you establish any reasonable input over which approach is preferable?
Comment: @AsafKaragila Then don't upvote it.
Comment: @AsafKaragila I don't really understand the relevance of yours.  Bill is saying there are reasons to do separate answers.  You reply and say we shouldn't believe any one who says they are not in it for reputation.  If people who don't care about money do work to deserve the money, then who cares if they get it?  They did the work to deserve it.  Why are we so concerned with people getting reputation?  It's not like any one is gaming the system and ending up as one of the top users on here because of it.  They may game the system and end up with an extra hundred reputation per month.
Comment: @AsafKaragila I'd rather have two sufficiently different answers neatly organized as two separate posts.  That's more important to me than worrying about whether or not someone is gaming the system.  So, if it's borderline, I'd rather someone neatly organize things than worry about whether or not some users are going to accuse them of rep farming.  That is, a user shouldn't have to think "Hmm, are people going to think I'm gaming the system if I do this" if they honestly aren't.  And, other users should give the benefit of the doubt so that honest people don't worry about this.
Comment: @Hurkyl Your inference is one *giant unfounded leap*! Some users argued that there are good reasons to allow multiple answers. How do you go from that to claiming that they believe "we shouldn't even contemplate whether behavior is problematic, because some people behave that way with good intentions"? Nobody said (or implied) that. That strawman is your own creation. If you deem your strawman to be "insulting" then the fix is easy: stop creating strawmen! They don't lend to constructive arguments. Similarly, the rest of what you say also does not apply to anything anyone has said here.
Comment: @Makoto: Your comment is off topic. This meta topic isn't about whether people should provide different approaches to a problem. This meta topic is about if and when a person providing different approaches should put them in a single answer.
Comment: @Bill: Do you seriously believe that anybody in this thread has argued that it is not helpful to present multiple approaches to a problem?!?!?! Or have said anything else that would actually be addressed by advocating that questioners be shown multiple approaches? I harp on it because it looks like yet another instance of Makoto's oblivious act where he continually ignores the actual criticisms and instead discusses other aspects of a situation. (it might not be an act, but it's becoming increasingly implausible that he's acting in good faith)
Comment: To see how your words are misinterpreted, pay attention to your remark. "Before one leaps towards accusations" -- note the choice of words with negative connotations. "important to keep in mind ". Why is it important to keep it in mind? The most obvious interpretation is that  is intended as a reason why one should not put forth an opinion. Your final sentence readily reinforces this interpretation, connecting "diversity of our community" with "jumping to possibly unfounded conclusions", a rather strongly negative description of voicing opinions on the topic.
Comment: @Shog9 Providing different approaches to a problem is a pedagogically good thing to do.
Comment: @Makato: it *can* be a good thing. I'm not convinced that *in this case* it was: given the number of (now-deleted) comments on your answers, it seems like you may have simply caused more confusion in the student. When your answers prompt *multiple* requests for clarification, it can be a pretty good sign you missed the mark when evaluating the asker's skill level - and a good time for some clarifying edits.
Comment: @AsafKaragila I support posting multiple answers.  Why wouldn't we?  It's your personal preference not to?  So, it's my personal preference to.
Comment: @Graphth More generally, I think that the problem of unfounded accusations based on misunderstandings is a problem much more deserving of attention than multiple-answer rep farming (which, if it even exists, is probably infinitesimal). Such accusations, whether they are about homework cheating, rep farming etc, are a major source of tension on the site.
Comment: @Graphth: If anything, then your comment is truly irrelevant. You add nothing to the discussion, except to point out that you support Bill's approach. Bravo, here's a round of applause. *clap clap clap*. Upvote his answer, there is no need to add useless comments. Bill should know how quickly comments degenerate to cynical and irrelevant discussions, and I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate such discussion here on his answer.
Comment: @Asaf: the comparison between rep and money only goes so far... arguably not far at all. Rep is almost worthless, more so as it accumulates (for those with no interest in mod tools or whatever the privileges are at the upper level). Furthermore...
Comment: @Asaf But that's precisely my point - one should not make *presumptions* without full understanding of *all* of the possible motivations for posting multiple answers.
Comment: @Bill: And my point is that the fact people *do* game the system means that there is a reason for rules, and there is a reason to avoid making precedents. You're a master in the art of "slippery slope" arguments, I'm sure you see my point.
Comment: @Asaf I think you misinterpreted something above, possibly my remark about "That may be true for you... " which was intended to mean that while you may believe that to be true, you cannot possibly know without speaking to others. But that's yet another example of folks jumping to conclusions and presuming bad intentions when none were intended. That is far too often the source of unneeded tension. If folks would only give other members the benefit of the doubt then most of the tension on MSE would quickly evaporate.
Comment: @Hurkyl As should be clear by now, not everyone agrees that posting multiple independent answers is "problematic behavior". Your final sentence makes no sense. To understand the context is it essential to read the *entire* comment thread.
Comment: @Hurkyl I don't agree that the tangential remark is "patronizing." Its purpose it to help others understand the diverse viewpoints in our community. Without being aware of such, someone who makes false rep farming accusations might easily alienate users who post multiple-answers with honorable intentions, e.g. (newly-joined) teachers. Increasing awareness of these diverse viewpoints will arm users with the information needed to give others the benefit of the doubt (when it is deserved), which goes a long way towards avoiding friction in the community.
Comment: @Hurkyl Yet more strawman arguments. I have no interest in engaging in such.
Comment: There are various good, useful, or honorable reasons to do many things. Was that true in this case? If so, what could MK do to make them more apparent in the future, and thereby avoid the problems he encountered? If not, what should he have done instead? This is a good answer for the hypothetical case of multiple answers, but I think what @Hurkyl is getting at is: do these *generalities* apply to the *specific* case raised in the question?
Comment: @Shog9 I'm not claiming each of my answers is good enough for the OP.
I'm just saying it is a pedagogically good thing to provide different approaches to a problem.
Even if the OP doesn't understand them now, he may be able to understand them someday.
I'm not talking about the OP only.
I'm sure there are users who understand my answers and learn something from them.
Comment: @Hurkyl Makoto's comment is certainly on-topic, in fact it is much more on-topic than many of the other comments in this meandering comment thread, which has degenerated into highly tangential strawman arguments, far from the main issues at hand.
Comment: @Graphth: I **really** don't see the relevance of your comment.
Comment: @Graphth: No. I also weep for the Batman question and the others. I also feel that sometimes newcomers which asked such questions try to replicate the "success". It's a shame. Yes. I can't stop people from voting. I can try and consolidate a mass opinion **against** gaming the system, though.
Comment: @Michael Don't believe the strawmen. Let's please get this thread back on topic.
Comment: @Michael Please see above: I already noticed that sentence may have been misinterpreted, and I explained what was meant. I am one of the most prolific writers on meta. With such volume there is bound to be some passages with ambiguity. The best I can do is clarify them when they are brought to my attention.  The second quoted sentence certainly does *not* make any "allusions about Asaf" (or anyone *in particular*). Apparently some readers understood the comment fine (and agreed) since it is currently the highest-voted comment above.
Comment: @Graphth: I didn't vote it... If anything I would have flagged it as "too chatty" and irrelevant. I'm just retorting your irrelevance with mine.
Comment: @Graphth: No, I am pointing out that the tangential point is not **that** tangential. There **are** people on this site who would game the system whenever they could. For badges, for reputation, for whatever. We should be careful in the precedents we set to allow. The fact that Bill is sitting so high on the shoulders of the giants and does not care about reputation, and whether or not MK is also careless for reputation, does not mean that we should immediately assume that whoever *does post several answers* is not gaming the system.
Comment: @TheChaz: Shall I compare it to drugs, then? Reputation is a driving force, regardless what anyone says. This is why there is so many cries when people are getting downvoted, and this is why people feel good when they are getting upvoted.
Comment: (... Never mind. I will hold my tongue/fingers/whatever)
Comment: @AsafKaragila I agree that we don't need to assume anyone doing this does NOT care about reputation.  And, I agree that many probably do.  I'm just saying, if we're trying to make a decision on something, it seems like one of the least important reasons to use.  Again, if someone really does game the system on something like this, it's not like they're going to vault themselves to be a top user.  They might add some reputation but not all that much.  Other people ask stupid questions and get 200 upvotes, 3 gold badges, and 800 reputation.  Do we have a rule against that?
Answer: Usual cases
There is nothing wrong with giving multiple answers, as long as they are sufficiently different. However, it is customary to give them all in the same post, headed by a bold title and separated by a line <code>***</code>.

Exceptional cases
If one of the answers is very long, it might be necessary to make an additional post, but that is a very exceptional case.
Comment: @MakotoKato: Not all social behavior can be quantified into a well-defined list of laws. In fact, most of it can't. Human beings are just this sort of wonderful creature that develop a big brain exactly for this purpose: to understand what is the community norm without having a flowchart which defines completely everything. Your incessant requests for "definitions" are almost always impossible to counter without shrugging and giving up (as many people do, if you look at the comment histories of your various threads).
Comment: I prefer separate answers in separate posts.
Comment: @Makoto: Are you capable of seeing the difference between three *long* answers and three *two lines* answers? (Hint: it's the length of the answers)
Comment: Since I did not vote on your answers, that would be off topic here.
Comment: Absolutely not. As long as they don't duplicate each other; the more, the merrier!
Comment: @MakotoKato: I would not call a good answer for a question, whether or not someone else has already answered, reputation farming.
Comment: @MakotoKato: I thought it had already been decided that the answers considered, whether from a single or multiple users, were "sufficiently different".
Comment: Could you give us some supporting evidences of your claim that it is customary to give them all in the same post?
Comment: @MakotoKato: I would consider the approach of those answers suffuciently different.  Algebra, algebraic geometry, and two geometry (the two geometry might be a bit close, both using localization properties of invertible affine maps). In any case, I don't get the impression that Mariano was reputation farming.
Comment: @MakotoKato: I would say that it is a combination of size and uniqueness, and it is hard to put a quantitative cutoff on things like uniqueness.
Comment: What about posting an answer to a question which someone else already answered?
There is nothing wrong with doing so, as long as they are sufficiently different?
Comment: @robjohn Even if he is reputation farming?
Comment: @robjohn Please explain why you demand sufficient differences in multiple answers by a user while you don't care about it with an answer to a question which someone already answered.
Comment: @robjohn I think I misunderstood you. I'd like to withdraw my last comment. I'm sorry about that.
Comment: @MakotoKato: I would have to spend more than I have right now to find more, but [here is one](http://math.stackexchange.com/a/234828)
Comment: @robjohn Here is an example of multiple separate answers by the same user. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/105231/show-that-there-is-no-affine-transformation-that-takes-a-circle-to-a-hyperbola-i
Comment: @robjohn I just picked it up as an example of multiple separate answers by the same user in contrast with your claim that it is customary to post them in a single post.
Comment: @AsafKaragila Do you mean that if they are about 10 lines each, it's OK?
Comment: Are you implying that you think my answers are not sufficiently different?
Comment: @MakotoKato: I have only spoken in general, except where I have commented on specific examples of Mariano's and mine. I have made no comment on your answers.
Comment: I'd like to know what you think about my answers.
Answer: One reason we sometimes see multiple answers to the same question is some doubt as to the mathematical knowledge or experience of the person who has asked the question.
In such cases I think it is of general benefit to the person who has asked the question - and to future explorers of the site - to have the links between levels indicated.
My oldest daughter (aged 15) said to me yesterday - when I ask you about homework you often go off onto things I haven't learnt yet, and which I don't quite understand - but then when my teacher deals with them in class, I do get them, and my classmates don't. She was pondering why that was, and I was thinking - it's how I learned mathematics - from my dad.
This is a great site for sensing the direction of travel and the challenges ahead.
Comment: That is one of the reasons that I mentioned in the fifth paragraph of my answer. I wholeheartedly agree about links. I've probably posted almost as many links as answers (a couple thousand), since I believe that showing the diverse and beautiful interconnections  in the mathematical web is one of the great pedagogical values that this site has to offer vs. other learning resources (e.g. paper textbooks, which are limited by linear organization).
Answer: The issue here is with reputation farming. Therefore, if you wish to post multiple answers and do not wish to suffer any hopstilities from anyone there is a simple solution.

Have one "main" answer. Make the rest community wikis.

If you are not simply after reputation then you should have no issues with this, and noone can criticise you for it. Simples!
Comment: I disagree: if answers are interesting and sufficiently different, I see no problem with getting reputation for both of them; if answers are not sufficiently different they shouldn't be separate CW or not.
Comment: How is it reasonable to bump a year and a half old cesspool just for this? (Also, congrats on the recent upgrade in status!)
Comment: I think that the point (in retrospect), was not reputation farming, as much as lack of acceptance of any negative criticism. Shog9's answer really sums up everything, and to the 10k users, there's a deleted answer with some comments which also make an excellent addition to that. But I really have no intention to be dragged into the soon-to-come nonsense by some of the meta flamethrowers, and this will conclude my remarks here for the time being. (Congrats again on the Ph.D., I hear it's like a "black belt in mathematics".)
Comment: [Here](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/296737/242) is a question with **seven** answers from a moderator. Strangely, no one had any problems with that, but they did when MK posted 3 answers. Bias?  I think so.
Comment: @AsafKaragila Thanks! I thought it was reasonable because noone had suggested this (also, Makoto brought up the linked-to main question elsewhere, so it is vaguely topical). To clarify my answer a bit: if someone posts an answer in the comments but the question remains unanswered for a while then I would happily paraphrase the comment into an answer and, if I had nothing more to add, make my answer a community wiki. I see no difference here - *if* you are not rep hungry *and* you do not wish to be seen as rep hungry *but* you still want to post multiple answers *then* this is the only solution
Comment: @AsafKaragila I agree with Shog's answer, and I agree with his interpretation of the question. *However*, the other 5 answers (+mine) address the question in the title. I interpreted the events as there being two questions, with shog having the definitive answer to the underlying one and with the other answers addressing the more interesting question which is actually relevant to other people. (The only problem with a PhD is that you have to start at the bottom again. Yes, it is like a black-belt, but you are a [0-dan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_rank) black belt...)


Why are asset pricing models equilibrium models?

Question: I have several times heard scholars refer to asset pricing models (such as the CAPM) as a type of equilibrium model. Why exactly is this the case? Does this simply mean that equilibrium is a necessary condition we need to accept for the model relationship to hold? Can this be shown formally?
Answer: An equilibrium asset pricing model is one in which the asset prices jointly satisfy the requirement that the quantities of each asset supplied and the quantities demanded must be equal at that price. It is as opposed to a partial equilibrium model where the price of the asset (or at least some assets) are determined outside of the model.
Comment: CAPM (e.g., Sharpe-Linter or Black's) is an equilibrium model in the sense that supply equals demand. The assumption of mean-variance investors leads to the two-fund separation theorem. After that, it's easy to show that in the aggregate, the tangency portfolio is the market portfolio. That key point at the end---that the tangency portfolio is the market portfolio (thus, markets clear)---is the reason why CAPM is an equilibrium model.
Comment: So the CAPM is a partial equilibrium model because the risk free rate and the market return are exogenous?
Answer: In general, you can distinguish theory for a given market with off-equilibrium and on-equilibrium theory.
Off-Equilibrium Theory
Off-Equilibrium theory basically means that the market is not cleared using prices, supply does not equal demand. This type of theory needs to give a good story why this is the case.
One very typical example is old Keynesian theory: due to stickiness of both wages and prices, in particular the labor market is not cleared: supply dominates demand.
The story for non clearing wages is a mixture of long-term wage contracts, efficiency wages, observed downward rigidity of wages and similar.
On-Equilibrium Theory
Asset markets however are typically assumed to be in equilibrium. The reason being that there exists a huge machinery (the whole financial system) that immediately (and mostly automatically) buys and sells assets when it predicts future changes in supply or demand.
We just don't think that asset prices are fixed at off-equilibrium values. What could possibly cause them to?
Answer: See CAPM: Absolute Pricing, or Relative Pricing? or Arbitrage Opportunity, Impossible Frontier, and Logical Circularity in CAPM Equilibrium
The CAPM formula holds under the partial equilibrium of purely risky assets, which is equivalent to the condition that the market portfolio is the tangency portfolio. Since the general solution to asset prices in CAPM has only one dimension, given all individual investor's endowments and mean-variance preferences, the condition of CAPM equilibrium turns out to be an equation of only one variable.
Market Settings: Given $N$
primitive securities (stocks) and $I$ investors, $N\geq2$, and $I\geq2$. Let
$X_{i}$ be the payoff of stock $i$ at time 1, then the payoff vector of $N$
stocks is $\mathbf{x}=[X_{1},X_{2},\cdots,X_{N}]^{\prime}$. Let
$\boldsymbol{\eta}=\operatorname{E}(\mathbf{x})$, and $\mathbf{\Omega
}=\mathrm{var}(\mathbf{x})$, we assume that the first two moments
$\boldsymbol{\eta}$ and $\mathbf{\Omega}$ are known, and the variance matrix
is positive definite, $\mathbf{\Omega}>0$, such that there is no redundant
security. Defining $\mathbf{p}=[P_{1},P_{2},\cdots,P_{N}]^{\prime}>0$ to be the price vector
of stocks ($P_{i}$ is the market value of stock $i$, not the market price per
share of stock). If $\mathbf{1}$ is a conforming vector of ones, then the total market payoff
is $X_{M}=\mathbf{1}^{\prime}\mathbf{x}$, with mean $E=\operatorname{E}
(X_{M})=\mathbf{1}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\eta}$, variance $Q=\mathrm{var}
(X_{M})=\mathbf{1}^{\prime}\mathbf{\Omega1}>0$, and total market value
$P_{M}=\mathbf{1}^{\prime}\mathbf{p}>0$. Let the return of $N$ stocks be $\mathbf{r}=[R_{1}
,R_{2},\cdots,R_{N}]^{\prime}$, then $R_{i}=X_{i}/P_{i}$, and
$$
\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{P}^{-1}\mathbf{x}
$$
where $\mathbf{P}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{p})$, the diagonal matrix of price
vector $\mathbf{p}$. Let
$$
\boldsymbol{\mu}=\operatorname{E}(\mathbf{r})=\mathbf{P}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\eta
}\qquad\mathbf{V}=\mathrm{var}(\mathbf{r})=\mathbf{P}^{-1}\mathbf{\Omega
P}^{-1}
$$
Since the first two moments of payoffs are known, the following three
variables, price vector $\mathbf{p}$, expected return vector $\boldsymbol{\mu
}$ and variance matrix $\mathbf{V}$ are equivalent, in the sense that any one of them is known, the other two are determined.
We assume that there is a risk-free bond, with payoff $X_{0}>0$ and return
$R_{0}>1$ (risk-free interest simple rate is $R_{0}-1$).
Let's define market beta (also beta value, or beta coefficient) of stock $i$
to be
$$
\beta_{i}\equiv\frac{\mathrm{cov}(R_{i},R_{M})}{\mathrm{var}(R_{M})}
$$
the classic CAPM formula
\begin{equation}
\mu_{i}-R_{0}=\beta_{i}(\mu_{M}-R_{0})\qquad i=1,2,\cdots,N \label{E:CAPM}%
\end{equation}
can be rewritten equivalently in form of payoff [See Eq (1) in Jensen and Long (1972, p.153), or Eq (7.23) in Fama and Miller (1972, p.296).]
$$
P_{i}=\frac{1}{R_{0}}\left(  \eta_{i}^{\,}-\frac{E-P_{M}R_{0}}{Q}Q_{i}\right)
\qquad i=1,2,\cdots,N \label{E:CAPM-P}
$$
Which is a system of linear equations on asset prices. we find that its solution space is one-dimensional.
If all investors use the mean-variance criterion, the following statements are equivalent

The CAPM formula
The market portfolio is equal to tangency portfolio
Price vector of risky securities follows
$$
\mathbf{p}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\eta}}{R_{0}}+x\mathbf{\Omega1}\qquad
x\in\mathbb{R}
$$

The semi-feasible equilibrium solution $x$ is affected by the endowment and/or preference of any individual investor. If $x=0$, the formula $\mathbf{p}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\eta}}{R_{0}}+x\mathbf{\Omega1}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\eta}}{R_{0}}$ is the discounted expected pricing.
CAPM equilibrium may coexist with arbitrage opportunities.
Summary: The CAPM formula is not an equilibrium pricing formula (absolute pricing), because it is only a result of partial equilibrium, and it has a one-dimensional general solution. Only when market return is given in advance, the CAPM formula could at best be considered a relative pricing formula. In this case it can only be used to price the portfolio of primitive securities. As relative pricing, it does not make sense to discuss risk in the CAPM formula. Because the relative pricing is based on the equilibrium prices of primitive securities and is realized through an arbitrage mechanism (replication), whereas arbitrage is not affected by risk preference. When the CAPM equilibrium prices are free of arbitrage, the CAPM formula must be a risk-neutral pricing formula.


At what altitude stalagmite/stalactite caves are located? What kind of rocks are needed to form them?

Question: I know that there are many kinds of such caves, but I am looking for ones (if they exist, and I don't know) that contain stalagmite and stalactites and are located at high altitude inside a mountain. I also need to know in what kind of mountains they are, and what kind of rocks must be present.
Also, can you suggest me a reference book about the topic?
I know nearly nothing about geology.
Comment: I have found active formations in caves at the 7000' to 8500' level in caves  in the South East portion of British Columbia, but the caves are effectively "fossils" and not actively growing.  Cave formation conditions are not necessarily the same conditions the create the formations in the caves.
Answer: The classic text has long been "Karst Hydrology and Physical Speleology" by Alfred Bogli, - which I highly recommend.
Karstic dissolution and precipitation (to form stalactites, helictites, etc.) are basically hydrologic processes in which groundwater seeks to attain thermodynamic equilibrium with the carbonate rocks with which it is in contact. Water flows downhill towards the base-level of erosion - generally sea level. But bear in mind that during the last glaciation sea level was about -120 metres compared to modern sea level. To get very high mountain karst the system has to develop and then be lofted by other tectonic processes of uplift. In the Jebel Akhdar of Oman there are caves up to about 2 km elevation, but I guess that some limestone massifs have been elevated higher than that.


Can I offset all rendering in SDL2?

Question: I know about SDL_RenderSetScale, but I need also horizontal/vertical shift of the renderer's origin. At the moment, I manually modify positions of all screen objects with the shift. Is there a way to set this shift/offset globally?
Answer: No. You might try tinkering around with SDL_RenderSetViewport, but that might not even work, and if it did, you wouldn't be using it for what it is supposed to be used.
The best solution here is to add your own wrapper layer, perhaps inside your own custom renderer class. You would proxy all rendering calls trough a specific method, and that method would automatically offset the rendering for you.
So, manually modifying the positions is the best and most reasonably way to go here.
Answer: I like to use a Camera class, which contains logic to smoothly track the player. When I want to render, I project my SDL_Rects through the camera with some convenience functions like this:
    void Camera::project(SDL_Rect& rect) {
        rect.x += -floorToInt(position.x) + floorToInt(width * 0.5f);
        rect.y += -floorToInt(position.y) + floorToInt(height * 0.5f);
    }```
</code>
<code>SDL_Rect Camera::getProjected(const SDL_Rect& inRect) {
    SDL_Rect rect = inRect;
    rect.x += -floorToInt(position.x) + floorToInt(width * 0.5f);
    rect.y += -floorToInt(position.y) + floorToInt(height * 0.5f);
    return rect;
}```

The offset is the inverse of the camera's position, plus an additional offset to place the camera focal point at the center of the screen.

Can I offset all rendering in SDL2?


Solidity: Conversion bytes memory to uint

Question: Is there a workaround to convert a bytes memory to uint256?
Comment: Actually is not the same question, since bytes is a dynamically-sized byte array, while bytes8 is not.
Comment: Indeed trying to do the same of ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/41944/ we have the following compiler error:
" TypeError: Explicit type conversion not allowed from "bytes memory" to "uint256"
Comment: Duplicate of https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/41944/hexadecimal-bytes-to-binary-uint-in-a-smart-contract
Answer: It's possible but there's no easy way to do it. You either have to do some bitwise xor and shifting to build the uint, or use inline assembly to mload.
Here's the working code, feel free to copy paste
function sliceUint(bytes bs, uint start)
    internal pure
    returns (uint)
{
    require(bs.length >= start + 32, "slicing out of range");
    uint x;
    assembly {
        x := mload(add(bs, add(0x20, start)))
    }
    return x;
}

Comment: This should be the accepted answer. Works great, thanks @libertylocked
Answer: You cannot cast bytes to uint256, since bytes is a dynamically-sized byte array.
If you really need to do this conversion, use bytes32 (or any other fixed sized byte array) instead of bytes and then convert it to uint256 by a simple cast:
function two(bytes32 inBytes) pure public returns (uint256 outUint) {
      return uint256(inBytes);
}

Comment: The problem is that I need to work with dynamically-sized byte array.

Another question: Is not possible to cast dynamically-sized byte array to  fixed sized byte array?
Comment: Think about this: how can you to convert a dynamically-sized array thats bigger then a fixed sized array? It won't fit ;)
Comment: this doesn't work in solc 0.5.x, any idea how to convert fixed size byte arrays to and from uint?
Answer: Is possible to simply cast bytes memory to string and then use the stringToUint function I found in the Answer: How to convert string to int.


How to keep two versions of an app installed?

Question: Android Market has just updated an app in my device. I liked the update, but its fully different from last version which was also my favorite. So, I want to keep last version too. I have last version's apk thanks to Titanium Backup. But, I can't install it without replacing current one (Android architecture sucks). Is there any way to do this? Hacks etc..
Note: I want to keep current version which must be connected with Market to receive future updates.
Answer: It can be done, but not simple for the reasons eldarerathis mentioned.
You need apktool. Refer to this guide on how to use it. And this on signing the apk after you're done.
You need to modify the AndroidManifest.xml file. Find the line that looks like this:
manifest package="com.example.app"

and change it to something like:
"com.example.app.foo"

After you're finished, recompile then resign. To restore your data, try the following via adb:
adb rm /data/data/com.example.app.foo
adb push /data/data/com.example.app /data/data/com.example.app.foo

Where com.example.app is the package name of the original and com.example.app.foo is the modified.
There's always a slight chance that the app will break, or depending on the way the app is structured you may receive a dialog every time you change the screen prompting you to choose which app you want to launch, but it's definitely worth a try if you want it badly enough.
Of course, the two apps will not share the same settings and data.
Comment: Great... I don't think it'd be subject to legal issues as I am not going to distribute/sell it.. Thanks!
Comment: It depends on your country. In Hungary it is legal to reverse engineer an app for learning/personal purposes but I don'T know about the rest of the world. But since you're not distributing anything you will not get in trouble.
Answer: You can't do this. Each Android application has a package name, which effectively defines the Java/Dalvik namespace that its classes occupy. You cannot have two packages of the same name installed because it would create overlapping namespaces, which is why it always replaces the old one when you install a new one. The only way you could feasibly do this is if you were able to get the source for the app and change all of the package definitions.
Answer: Do it with in 5 minutes
Method : Change package name so that android will recognize it as a different app.
No APKtool, no adb, no super user skills needed.
Tools required

PC with JAVA ( Windows, Linux, Mac )  ( JDK 8 prefered )
ApkRename

Steps

Backup/Download a copy of the desired app (app.APK)
Transfer to PC
On PC download JAVA and ApkRename
Change package name by providing, path to APK file and new package name, to ApkRename
Sign the APK using ApkSign
Transfer the new APK to phone and install it.

NOTE: In case any difficulty in signing the APK, use android APK editor app like  Advanced permission manager and make any edit, press save & install. At this time they will sign the app.
Answer: You could try repackaging the application. I once installed some edited version of a game and the result was two games. If remember good, package names weren't the same.
Answer: Sometimes, there are some references in executable library (.so), and changing package name (also smali -> classes.dex) does not help either.
In simple cases look for ApkEditor.
Comment: This is a good start, but doesn't explain what changes you need to make in ApkEditor. If you want your answer to be helpful, you might want to edit it to add a bit more information.


Disable block mining reward in private testnet

Question: Is there a way I can disable the generation of block reward in a private network during creation? Any parameter in genesis.json can do so?
Comment: You can remove 'alloc' param in `genesis.json` file.
Comment: @BinGoBinBin I do not think that is correct, 'alloc' is to define a list of pre-filled wallets. What I am looking for is a way to remove the mining reward, so the volume of eth will not increase over time.
Comment: I know what you want, please wait for me ten minutes to test. HaHaHa~
Answer: You can change source file consensus to implement. As follows:

clone [go-ethereum] source file
open consensus/ethash/consensus.go file, then find AccumulateRewards function and annotation tow lines. The result is

func AccumulateRewards(state *state.StateDB, header *types.Header, uncles []*types.Header) {
  reward := new(big.Int).Set(blockReward)
  r := new(big.Int)
  for _, uncle := range uncles {
    r.Add(uncle.Number, big8)
    r.Sub(r, header.Number)
    r.Mul(r, blockReward)
    r.Div(r, big8)
    //state.AddBalance(uncle.Coinbase, r)
    r.Div(blockReward, big32)
    reward.Add(reward, r)
  }
  //state.AddBalance(header.Coinbase, reward)
}

Rebuild. executing make all command and then run geth.

Now, you can start mine, all rewards wouldn't be added account balance of coinbase.
Hope it helps ~
Comment: Thanks @BinGoBinBin! So there is no way i can disable it without changing the source?
Comment: As far as know, there is no way~


mysql cluster .net connector

Question: I'm trying mysql cluster to use in a project for our customer.
The configuration I setted up is the following:
Hardware S.O. equipment
Server1 - S.O. Windows 2008 R2 64bit
Server2 - S.O. Windows 2008 R2 64bit
Client1 - S.O. Windows 7 64bit
Client2 - S.O. Windows 7 64bit

UserClient2 - S.O. Windows 7 64bit
UserClient3 - S.O. Windows 7 64bit
UserClient4 - S.O. Windows 7 64bit
UserClient5 - S.O. Windows 7 64bit
UserClientXX - S.O. Windows 7 64bit (where XX is less than 15)

My Sql Cluster Configuration
    Server1 - act as cluster data node 1
    Server2 - act as cluster data node 2
    Server1 - act as mysql node 1 (from now MYSQL-D1)
    Server2 - act as mysql node 2 (from now MYSQL-D2)
Client1 - act as mysql cluster management node 1
Client2 - act as mysql cluster management node 2

Client application configuration
The following clients (from now CLIENTAPP):
Client1, Client2, UserClient2, .., UserClientXX
have a Microsoft .Net application that interact with mysql cluster database.
After a while the My sql cluster configuration appears to work correctly and any of CLIENTAPP it's able to connect to MYSQL-D1 or MYSQL-D2 (this is possibile by changing the connection string of .NET client application and pointing to IP of MYSQL-D1 or to the IP of MYSQL-D2).
In a perfect world CLIENTAPP automatically it's able to connect to the right server (MYSQL-D1 or MYSQL-D2), pratically:
    - if MYSQL-D1 it's down CLIENTAPP connect to MYSQL-D2
    - if MYSQL-D2 it's down CLIENTAPP connect to MYSQL-D1
How .NET client application can interact with mysql cluster?
The best solutions I have found for my scenario are the followings:
    1. use mysql proxy but this is in a alpha stage and I can't use it in production enviroment
    2. install cluster data node on each CLIENTAPP
    3. use a connection string that support multiple servers (I don't know if it's supported by mysql .NET connector)
    4. rewrite my application to interact with both MYSQL-DX node (what I want to avoid)
Is there a right solutions? Which one is the best one?
Thank you
Answer: This was answered on the MySQL Cluster forum:
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?25,583508,584009

mysql cluster .net connector


Does Tor team have plans to implement post-quantum asymmetrical encryption schemes?

Question: There is information that NSA is building quantum computer. Since it would make it possible to crack RSA using Shor's algorithm and we unlikely to know if they will successfully build it and start using, this becomes serious security problem. Would Tor team preventively implement post-quantum algorithms?
Answer: TLDR: No, it would be nice, but the primitives are not there yet, it is something that some of us think about though.
To secure Tor against quantum computer attacks you will need:

A replacement for TLS (to secure the inter-relay traffic).

Alternatively post quantum TLS ciphersuites can be used here instead, but none currently exist. (The old IETF draft that added NTRU suites does not count, because it needs major revision and does not provide a suitable signature algorithm, or perfect forward secrecy).

A signature algorithm (to replace RSA/Ed25519)

NTRUSign is completely, utterly, broken.
SPHINCS256 has rather large keys/signatures and is quite slow on systems without AVX2.
The other primitives here have bigger drawbacks than SPHINCS256.

A key exchange primitive (to replace Curve25519).

Simply using NTRUEncrypt will result in keys/ciphertexts that do not fit into single cells.
NTRU-KE is incredibly new, the on-the-wire components do not fit into a single Tor cell, and no one has done the work to determine "safe" parameter sets.
Supersingular Isogeney Diffie-Hellman is also incredibly new, and considerably more computationally expensive than Curve25519.

A symmetric encryption primitive (to replace CTR-AES128)

"Easy", pick something with a 256 bit security target.

All of this ignores the fact that NTRU is patent encumbered (to 2017 for the X9.98 parameter sets, 2020 for the newer parameter sets).
Answer: Tor explicitly state that : Tor does not protect you from global adversary. NSA is the prime example of global adversary. This is true even before implementation of quantum algorithm.
For your reference read the following quote from Tor.

Tor doesn't protect you from a global adversary
A global passive adversary would be a person or an entity able to
  monitor at the same time the traffic between all the computers in a
  network. By studying, for example, the timing and volume patterns of
  the different communications across the network, it would be
  statistically possible to identify Tor circuits and thus matching Tor
  users and destination servers.
It is part of Tor's initial trade-off not to address such a threat in
  order to create a low-latency communication service usable for web
  browsing, Internet chat or SSH connections.

As you hear from horse's mouth quantum algorithm or no quantum algorithm Tor does not protect you from NSA or similar Global adversaries which pretty soon will be any entity which in willing to spend enough fund to obtain the information independently. Genie is already out of the bottle!
Comment: The question is not _"Does Tor protect against the NSA given that the NSA can monitor the entire network?"_ It was more like _"Now that technology may be on the horizon that can solve large polynomials fast, has the Tor dev team considered ways to cope with that?"_ It is more about RSA becoming unsafe and less about the NSA.
Comment: NSA attempts to be a GPA, but it most certainly is _not_ one.


Escalation to Leadership about senior management

Question: Is it right to escalate to senior leadership (CEO) if you feel the senior management is not doing the right thing or basing the decisions based on personal preferences rather than the goals of the organization. How should one go about it?
Comment: I think the question could use a lot more details. It really depends on the situation, company culture, personal preference, and possibly other factors. I think [Ben's has good insight on how to approach questions like this, *ask for more details* before answering](http://meta.pm.stackexchange.com/a/338/34), which helps make them more constructive.
Comment: that is a great question +1
Answer:
How should one go about it?

Very very carefully.  The politics around this are huge.  What you do not know is if the actions by senior management are at the direction of senior leadership.  Decision are being made based on information to which you are not privy or of which you are not aware.  So what may not make sense to you may make perfect sense based on the direction they are choosing to go or the priorities they are choosing to address at the penalty of what you find important.
Even if published "open door policies," it is important to tread carefully.  If you choose to bypass your chain of command, do so in "learning" mode and do so with the full recognition of the risk of downstream effects, e.g., mistrust by your chain of command, you are likely to face.
And, for yourself, examine this notion of "right thing."  What makes your opinion so right?  How often do we see in complex business problems something that is so right?  Isn't it more slightly more right or even the best of all crappy alternatives?  It is a red flag to me when some claims they are right and everyone else is wrong.  We all do it; I do it all the time, but in the back of my head I ask myself what am I not seeing.
Comment: "It is a red flag to me when some claims they are right and everyone else is wrong." Funny, this is what concerned me about the senior management at my previous company!  There are only so many people one can fire for failed projects before someone should look at the people doing the firing.
Answer: This really depends on your organization structure and culture. Some companies have a very rigid escalation procedure that prevents certain levels to contact senior roles. So, David as rightly said, you have to be really careful.
Is there an existing Project Management Escalation Process within your organization? If there is, does it enable you to talk directly with the CEO without any other senior role involved?
I'm assuming that your question is related to project risks and/or issues where you are struggling to get support from a member of the Project Board. You could take two approaches:

You could suggest the Board to include you in the communication procedure with the CEO (or other Senior level) to support any queries or concerns they might raise as a mean to interact with him/her. Nevertheless, I have to admit that is can be really difficult if not impossible.
On the other hand, you could accept that the Board has the ultimate interest in the project's outcome; so if you have already conveyed all your concerns, they have acknowledged them and they have decided to do nothing, the potential failure will be down to them.

Either way you will have to ensure that your attempt to approach the CEO does not generate additional conflict or impacts your relationship with the Board complicating your project even further.
Answer: How should one go about it?
By making sure that what you "feel" is in fact "true", and that you have supporting evidence to prove it.
If you feel (think) that senior management is conflict with the goals of the org, then match the decisions being made with the stated goals and show the conflict. Show how the decisions are detrimental or personally driven. Unless you have evidence to support your claim then you're nothing more than a disgruntled employee.
But even then, as David said, be VERY careful. Even if the decisions being made ware wrong, they're probably not 'firing offenses', which means now you've called out your boss, and he's still going to be your boss.
My first suggestion though would be to gather your evidence, and talk directly to the senior leader. Pose it as an "I don't understand this decision" type of inquiry to see if perhaps there's reason you don't know about. If you start from a "I'm not privy to everything" position rather than a "they're wrong" stance, you may get farther.
Answer: A few thoughts:

Know your companies' protocols. You need to know if you are even "allowed" to escalate issues at your workplace. In some companies, this could be an indiscretion that earns you a write-up and a "personal-management" plan.
Avoid making this personal. Even if you work in an open-door setting, do not throw anyone under the bus. Talk about "challenges that have not been overcome" and "project inertia". Be diplomatic and test the waters. Have evidence of issues - not of personal failures by managers.
Understand the repercussions. Individuals caught up in your reporting of the problem will quickly know where the accusation comes from -- don't kid yourself otherwise. They will not, in all likelihood, think favourably of you thereafter.
Know your senior management. Will they care? And even if they care, will they act? Being told about a problem and acting on a problem are two different things.
Consider other avenues. You say they are wrong and making decisions based on personal bias; can you challenge their decisions - to them, in project meetings - with facts? Industry standards, best practices, research -- it's all out there.
Ask yourself: Could I be the one who is wrong?


WithEvents/Handles better than Remove/AddHandler?

Question: From a memory point of view (remove an added handler after utilization, etc.), is WithEvents and Handles usage preferable to RemoveHandler and AddHandler?
A related Stack Overflow question is Event handler and memory leaks.
Answer: It depends on what you're trying to achieve.  If you have several event handlers which must handle events for various controls during the lifetime of a form/object then WithEvents and Handles is the easiest way to go.  The language will do all of the dirty work for you in terms of setting up the event.  On the other hand, if you tend to disconnect from events during the lifetime of the form, AddHandler and RemoveHandler are better options.
Answer: I prefer WithEvents/Handles in situations where it is applicable, because it better expresses what the code is supposed to be doing.  One caveat with "WithEvents/Handles" is that any object which receives events from a longer-lived object should implement IDisposable and should set all its WithEvents variables to Nothing when it is disposed, to ensure all events are unwired.  Detaching events when using AddHandler/RemoveHandler is just as necessary, but perhaps more obvious.  When using WithEvents it's somewhat easier to forget.
BTW, I don't know of any way to automatically set all WithEvents variables to Nothing.  It would seem a common enough requirement, but for whatever reason Microsoft didn't include such a feature in VB.
Answer: Depends what your doing really, if you want to dynamically attach / detach event handlers then using AddHandler/RemoveHandler is the way to go about it otherwise using Handles is perfectly fine.


What is the way to Liberation: direct communication with lord Krishna or the reading scriptures?

Question: Which is it better the reading of the multitude of scriptures from different schools of Hindu thought whose aim is to show you the way to self realization, Moksha, Brahman, or direct communication with Lord Krishna?
Comment: If you have direct communication with Krishna, that implies that you are already liberated.
Comment: Saguna Upansasa - Krishna, Nirguna Upasana - Brahman. Also visit [Why does Krishna consider/believe the devotee who worship him as saguna superior than who worship as nirguna?](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/11520/277).
Comment: @Uday Krishna Ya it is the effort of the Divine Will power that takes one to the keshetra called Mt Kailash.
Comment: Krishna = Brahman. Krishna alone = Brahman. So, both are the way.
Comment: vote to close. primarily opinion based.
Comment: @Arkprabha Majumdar  Not necessarily, as far as I know many devotees of Krishna are not liberated because of their Samskaras of anger, greed and ignorance have not been dissolved, it takes time to clean and let go of attachments. They are like the lotus seed that germinates in the impure realm and and darkness of the earth grows through impure and pure realm of the water and finally reaches fullfillment by blossoming in the pure realm. If the devotee makes effort to be with Krishna surely he will be liberated.
Comment: @Swami Vishwananda - Ya exactly what I reckon. The multitude of Hindu Schools are opinion based and have various interpretations where direct communication with the Lord does not involve opinions it is only Truth.
Comment: Well if merely by reading one can attain moksha then probably just by reading everyone can be a doctor or an engineer right? Keeping it short n simple, practical knowledge is what really makes you what you are, theory can only guide you.
Answer: By reading scriptures one can not get Moksha. This is a well known conclusion of Hinduism.
Shabda Gyana (which are the scriptures) can not give Moksha. It is the direct perception or the Aparoksha anubhuti that will give.
Here's a verse from Patanjali Yoga Sutras.

shrutanumanaprajnabhyam anyavishayaa vishesharthatvat ||
The knowledge that is gained from testimony and inference is about
  common objects. That from the Samadhi just mentioned is of a much
  higher order, being able to penetrate where inference and testimony
  cannot go.

On this Sutra, Swami Vivekananda's commentary is as follows:

The idea is that we have to get our knowledge of ordinary objects by
  direct perception, and by inference therefrom, and from testimony of
  people who are competent. By "people who are competent," the Yogis
  always mean the Rishis, or the Seers of the thoughts recorded in the
  Scriptures—the Vedas. According to them, the only proof of the
  Scriptures is that they were the testimony of competent persons, yet
  they say the Scriptures cannot take us to realisation. We can read all
  the Vedas, and yet will not realise anything, but when we practise
  their teachings, then we attain to that state which realises what the
  Scriptures say, which penetrates where reason cannot go, and where the
  testimony of others cannot avail. This is what is meant by this
  aphorism, that realisation is real religion, and all the rest is only
  preparation—hearing lectures, or reading books, or reasoning, is
  merely preparing the ground; it is not religion. Intellectual assent,
  and intellectual dissent are not religion. The central idea of the
  Yogis is that just as we come in direct contact with the objects of
  the senses, so religion can be directly perceived in a far more
  intense sense.

Regarding direct communication with Krishna - not sure what does that mean. Arjuna etc used to have direct communication with Krishna but they did not get Moksha.
Comment: Aruna didn't get moksha because he is an incarnation of Nara. He returned to his abode Vaikuntha after his death.
Comment: Whatever the reason might be that he did not get Moksha is a fact. Also it's not about him alone. There are plenty of others who also did not get Moksha. That's why i've mentioned "Arjun etc". So, it's not that easy. From what i've seen users of this site have pretty childish opinions and ideas about Moksha. People who are genuinely looking for it must first get Guru Diksha instead of going after self-imagined methods. @Sarvabhouma
Comment: There are other reasons why Arjuna didn't get moksha besides this. It takes another answer to explain ;). Yeah, I too agree with you on getting moksha. It's not a piece of cake to get easily. Understanding god and spending time with God are two different things.
Answer: Krishna is verily Brahman personified. This is stated on the Bhagavatam, verse 1.3.28:

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ |
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam |
indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ
mṛḍayanti yuge yuge ||
All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead, who incarnates on different planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists.

Here, we need to concentrate on the second line, which says 'Krsnas tu Bhagavan Svayam'. This means 'But Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead. So, Brahman is Krishna.
He also says in the Bhagavad Gita:

sarva-dharmān parityajya
mām ekaṁ śharaṇaṁ vraja |
ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo
mokṣhayiṣhyāmi mā śhuchaḥ ||
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

So, both, reading scriptures as well as surrendering to Krishna are methods of liberation. But by reading the scriptures to get liberation, one would have to wait a lot of time in Samsara. By just surrendering to Krishna, one can obtain liberation very easily! If done with the purest of love and devotion and doing ones duty, it is possible to achieve Moksha in this very birth! So I would recommend you to follow the second method, ie. to surrender to Krishna.
Comment: Bhagavan means the one who has "bhaga" which means fortune and it doesn't say "*original* personality of Godhead". And Goddess Durga is called Bhagavati which also means the one who has Bhaga.  And in Sri Rudram (Veda Samhita), Rudra is described as नमस्ते अस्तु भगवः which also means same. So, bhagavan can't be translated as "original Personality of Godhead"
Comment: @TheDestroyer I don't think namaste astu bhagavan is a part of Sri Rudram. It is an invocation before reading that.I the above verse, Bhagavan is used as a proper noun to denote Krishna who is supreme to them rather than common noun who is fortunate. Everyone who is fortunate can't be called as Bhagavan. It is very very rare.
Comment: @Sarvabhouma It's not Namaste astu Bhagavan but Namaste Astu Bhagavaha in middle of Samhita, विकिरिद विलोहित नमस्ते अस्तु भगवः । यास्ते सहस्रँ हेतयोन्यमस्मन्निवपन्तु ताः ॥"Bhagavan is used as a proper noun to denote Krishna who is supreme to them rather than common noun who is fortunate". This is subjective and depends on sect one follows. But my point is about translation and Bhagavan can't be translated as "original personality of Godhead"
Answer: Scriptures do not lead one to moksha.

They study the Vedas and discuss. But they do not realize the Ultimate
  Reality just as a spoon does not know the taste of food.
The head carries the flowers, the nose knows the scent. The people
  study the Vedas. But, very few persons understand the same.
Not knowing the Reality of the self, a fool is infatuated by the
  sastras. When the goat stands in the shed, the shepherd seeks for it
  in the well in vain.
The knowledge of the sastras is not competent to destroy the
  infatuation accruing from worldly affairs.

….

Having studied the
  Vedas and realized their essence the wise man should leave all the
  sastras just as one desiring corn leaves the husk.
Just as one satiated with nectar has no use of food, no one who is in
  search of Reality has anything to do with the sastras.
One cannot obtain release by reading the Vedas or the sastras. Release
  comes from experience, not otherwise, O son of Vinata.

[Garuda Purana, Dharma Khanda, Chapter XLIX]


Where should exceptions live in a maven project directory?

Question: Is there a specific location within the maven project structure, or package naming convention when defining your own exceptions for a project? I assume throwing them into an 'exceptions' package will be fine, but I thought I'd ask here since the googlebox wasn't yielding any answers.
Answer: This question has nothing to do with maven. Basically you are asking where in package hierarchy should exceptions be placed.
Since exceptions are like any other class, advices are the same: close to where they are used (preferably the same package).
Answer: What Tomasz said, but if there are a lot of Exceptions, put them in their own package - typically called com.mycompany.<topic>.exceptions
Answer: No. Maven is unaware of how Java packages are organized.


What is the expiration date of patent US 6,676,109?

Question: Is patent US 6,676,109 for a rotary valve in favor of Kitz Corporation a design patent or a utility patent?
What is the expiration date of the patent?
Answer: If you look in the first paragraph of the description of the Utility Patent US 6,676,109, you will find:

This application is a continuation application of Ser. No. 09/861,547, filed May 22, 2001.

This is also clearly noted on the first page of the patent:

Continuation of application No. 09/861,547 filed on May 22, 2001.

The filing date to start counting from is therefore May 22, 2001, which gives an expiration date of May 22, 2021.
Also of note is:

Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended
  or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.

Which, since it is 0 days, does not affect the expiration date.
Finally, check the Legal Events to ensure the maintenance fees have been paid:
<code>Jul 5, 2007 FPAY    Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4

Jun 13, 2011    FPAY    Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
</code>
The fees have been paid, so the patent will remain enforceable until at least January 13, 2016. Since Kitz Corporation is typically paying the fees in June, you may want to re-check the Legal Events next month to see if they have paid.
Answer: Design patents are designated with a "D" in front of them, like "D432100.  The standard 7 digit patent number is a utility patent.
You can go to:
https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do
to check out the status of an application's maintenance fees.
This patent (6676109) is based off of Application 10/412,585, and appears currently paid up and in force.  If the next fee is paid in 2015, it will stay in force until 04/14/2023.
Comment: This answer is incorrect regarding the expiration date because it failed to take into account the continuation application filing date.
Comment: Yes i agree with Vallismortis


Open gifts at birthday party

Question: Just wanted to find out what the proper etiquette is when hosting a child's birthday party.  Should the gifts be opened during the party?
Answer: In my experience (in the US), it is appropriate to at least open the gifts given by the attending guests, whether the guests are friends or family. This behavior is also reinforced in media portrayals of birthday parties. (Toy Story, for example, had all the gifts being opened at the party.)
Indeed, one of the most exciting things at birthday parties is the chance to see what all the person received, and to see their reaction when they received it. I would hazard to say that it's also expected by many people.
The potential downside is your child receiving a gift they aren't enthused about, or already one they already own. While most adults can be understanding of this, the giving child may be disappointed if they notice the birthday child wasn't very thrilled. This can be mitigated by the birthday child thanking everyone after they receive each gift, and by the fact that guests will often clamor to have their gift opened next (which will shift everyone's focus).
Opening the gift(s) from the parents is not always done at the party. It can be done during a private, family celebration of the birthday. Reasons I would do this are:

The gift is one of a more personal/sentimental nature, and thus not appropriate or exciting for guests.
The gift is of much higher value than those expected to be received by the guests. However, some high value gifts (such as a new video game console) would be appropriate to give at the party if you coordinated with the guests and knew they were getting the child something to go with that gift (such as games or accessories for the console).
The gift is something that may put off other parents because they don't want to have to explain to their child why they can't have one (such as a first cellphone).

Update:
Multiple other answers have given many reasons for not opening presents at a birthday party. The reasons are valid, as cultures do vary.
To account for the varied expectations of your attendees, you can make plans regarding your specific decision. A few options I would suggest:

Inform the attendees sometime during the party of your decision. This can be easily be done during a general "agenda" announcement. "First, we're going to do XX, then YY. At Z o'clock we'll eat, followed by cake and ice cream. Afterwards, we'll have a gift-opening ceremony."
Make attending gift-opening optional. "At the end of the celebration, if you would like to stick around, we'll be opening the gifts."
Have some gifts to open (such as those from the parents), but don't open any of the guest gifts. These "prop" gifts could actually be things to be used/consumed at the party, along the lines of party favors, instead of typical gift items.
Comment: +1 - Also, coaching a child thoroughly on how to graciously accept even disappointing gifts is always desirable. Even with unexciting gifts, someone cared enough to buy (or make) him something. That matters.
Comment: Indeed. However,  one can still notice that the child was obviously more excited about gift X. Even though they were very gracious about gift Y. I find that even adults (myself included) have a hard time masking that a gift wasn't a good fit. even though I express genuine thanks for all gifts.
Comment: Regarding the last point, that problem isn't mitigated by this approach either way, because children still compare themselves to their friends. Whether they see it being given at a birthday party or the first time they come to play over, in the end it's exactly the same thing.
Comment: Yes, but at least it won't come up during the celebration. If people are going to be upset, it'll happen no matter when they find out. You at least have some control over that. I'd just recommend avoiding conflict during the event.
Answer: I've dealt with this on a personal level with my children. We are a mixed race couple, and on my side of the family (white), family and friends all expected gifts to be opened. On my wife's side of the family (Asian), family and friends did not expect them to be opened. We too fell into agreement with our respective sides.
It seems to be driven largely by culture, so the safest bet would be to make note of the customs observed by your children's friends, and follow along. Assuming you don't have strong opinions yourselves on the matter.
As for us, we've decided to alternate years. Even years we open. Odd years we don't.

One final note: if you don't open presents in the presence of the gift giver, be absolutely, 100% sure to send thank you cards. Not that you should avoid it if they are there, but it's extra critical if they aren't.
Comment: You make an excellent point about the thank you cards. Do you have the children do them? Or do you do them on their behalf? I've seen them where the child signs it (as best they can lol)
Comment: That's a nice idea about the child signing it. My kids only have a total of two birthdays between them so far, so I can't yet answer that from experience. :)
Answer: We switched to opening them after the party and sending thank-you notes after our first attended a party around second grade where the host family did it that way. We were especially appreciative, as we were definitely the least wealthy people at the party, and likely had brought the least expensive, least ostentatious gift by an order of magnitude.
Answer: At birthday parties here for children from about 4 to about 14 presents are not opened. The are received with thanks as guests arrive, sometimes with cards being opened, but then the kids want to play, run around, face paint, whatever.
Benefits of this include:

being able to properly record who gave what - making organising thank you letters much simpler
less mess to tidy
no presents getting lost/taken/broken
no bored children waiting around while presents are being opened
Comment: "being able to properly record who gave what" - that hinges on the gifts somehow indicating who is their originator. If they do not, opening them makes it much easier to remember who gave what than ending up with a set of nondescript wrapped boxes.
Answer: I think it depends upon the age of the children.
If the birthday child is mature and restrained enough to make appropriate comments when opening gifts that he or she is not enthused with OR when opening duplicate gifts, then it is nice for the kids to participate and feel involved in the gift opening.  Additionally, if the children are old enough to have been involved in the selection of the gift, then they have a more vested interested in seeing it opened.
Alternatively, the most important message in gift giving is the thought that the gift giver put in to the gift and gratitude from the recipient.  This is sometimes best achieved in a private gift opening post party where a parent can articulate the good intentions of all gift givers and heartfelt thank you notes can be written.
Answer: I think it is up to the parents or the child. We've been to two parties, and neither opened presents there; some of that may have been the ages (3). Some also was the venue - limited time means removing boring parts.
Ultimately there is no obligation to open presents there; it can be fun but it can also be boring and stressful. Choose what you are comfortable with and then send out thank you cards.
Answer: Note that the pressure to open gifts, as evidenced by the other comments, may be outside the realm of the gift givers or receivers. (That is, it's up to the parents. The kids will go along with whatever.)
If the gifts might be used as part of the social gathering, -- Hey, let's play with the new toys! -- then it might be okay to open at the party, especially if it's a multi-player game. Whatever happens, don't forget to send thank-you cards.

Open gifts at birthday party


Is there a site that tracks volume over time?

Question: Coinmarketcap shows the current volume data. Is there a site that tracks volume over time in a graph and data table where you can sort by highest volume days? I'm looking to see if a specific coin has been increasing volume over time.
Comment: coinmarketcap keeps track of volume data for every day. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/historical-data/
Comment: @patoshi: Many of your questions create new tags that are duplicates of existing tags or unnecessary. E.g. your question here uses Coinmarketcap as an example of _what you're not looking for_. It doesn't make sense to me that you then create that as a new tag here. Could you please see whether there are existing tags that are applicable and try to think about the utility of new tags before creating them?
Comment: Could you please clarify whether you mean trade volume or transferred volume?
Answer: Try this site, data is shown graphically but can be downloaded in *.CSV or *.XLS file as well... http://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/30d?c=e&t=b


How to upgrade effortlessly from Ubuntu 10.04 to Ubuntu 11.10 on the same machine

Question: Ubuntu 11.10 is now a few days away. I have quite a lot of apps installed on Ubuntu 10.04. How can I effortlessly upgrade from Ubuntu 10.04 to Ubuntu 11.10. Please suggest the minimal disruption route. In case I have to reinstall all the apps how can I take a backup of all the apps that I have..
Answer: There are two supported upgrade paths for Ubuntu; LTS-to-LTS and stepwise. That means that you should be able to easily upgrade from 10.04 to 12.04, but from 10.04 to 11.10 would require some steps:

upgrade from 10.04 to 10.10
Upgrade from 10.10 to 11.04
upgrade from 11.04 to 11.10

This would take quite some time, and because of unusually large changes in 11.04 and 11.10, I don't think I would recommend you even attempt it. If you are using a normal desktop without webserver or SQL, etc, then all your apps are configured in your home directory. This means that if you install a new Ubuntu and install your apps anew, then they would automatically use your current configurations and data. If you do have MySQL or similar installed, then it becomes more complicated as they often store their data in /var or other places.
Ubuntu 10.04 is supported until April 2013, so you shouldn't feel rushed to upgrade. In April you'll be able to upgrade directly from the update manager. If you do want to, then it might still be possible to use the new graphical installer to replace your current version, but I haven't tried that myself. You would then have to install your applications afterwards, but they would be automatically configured.
You do need to take precautions and please don't do this without having a backup.
Answer: One  option would be to upgrade through all the intermediate releases - i.e. 10.04 - 10.10 - 11.04 - 11.10. I have a few machines which have been continuously upgraded from 7.10 or maybe earlier to the current version and they're still running fine.
Another option would be to dump the list of your installed applications using
dpkg --get-selections > installed_applications.txt

Then you can make a clean install (this will be easier if you have /home on a separate partition, but supposedly Ubuntu installer is able to keep /home even it's on the same partition), and then re-install the applications using
dpkg --set-selections < installed_applications.txt
dselect update
apt-get dselect-upgrade show

Because the applications keep their configuration in your home folder, all application settings should be preserved.
Make sure you have a backup before attempting anything :)
Comment: The asker said they are running 10.04, not 11.04. That might make the procedure for upgrading to 11.10 quite different.