What is Loan to Value Ratio?

Question: Suppose if I am taking a $50,000 on loan for home or for car or for anything,I have read it many times that LVR is 85% or 80%.what does it mean actually?
Is it applicable for Indian citizens too?
Answer: LVR is Loan To Value Ratio. If we are buying a property of $100,000 with a loan of $75,000, the LVR is 75%.
It is applicable to India as well. In Indian Context it is typically called Debt Equity Ratio. For most of the bank, if we are buying house of INR25,00,000 an LVR of 75% will be asked by the bank. This means the buyer has to pay 25% from his own sources.
Answer: The Loan to Value ration (LTV) is a simple calculation.
If you make a 20% down payment , the LTV will start off at 80%. As you make payments the amount you owe will decrease, so even if the value of the house stays the same the LTV will decrease.
If you have 50,000 remaining on the Loan, and the house is worth 62,500, the LTV is 80%. (50000/62500)
The lower the LTV the less likely you are to walk away from the house. In the US an initial LTV of more than 80% requires PMI. Banks will also require LTV to be less than 80% on a cash out refinance.
Answer: LVR is simply the amount of the loan to the value of the asset you are buying expressed as a percentage (or ratio).
Most banks in Australia require you to have an LVR of 80% or less. If you have a LVR of more than 80% then the bank passes on the costs of the Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) to the borrower. In some cases the bank may require a lower LVR. This has been the case previously in Sydney Australia when there was an over supply of inner city appartments built in the 1990s and their values started dropping considerably. The banks saw these properties as a higher risk so reduced the level of LVR to 60%, where the cost of LMI was passed onto borrowers when their LVR was above this 60%.
So if a house costs $100,000 you would need to have a deposit of $20,000 (plus purchasing costs) and borrow $80,000 to have an LVR of 80%. During the life of the loan the LVR will change. It will reduce as the loan amount is reduced and the value of the house increases, but it can also increase if the value of the house drops considerably (as it may during a property crash).
LVR would be applicable with most banks in most countries, but may be called by a different name.
Answer: LVR is also called the Loan To Value (LTV) ratio. When you start the loan, it's the amount of loan to the value of the property. In India it has to be at most 80% (according to the RBI) and in some cases, it's limited to 75% (higher end housing).
But there are those that work around the limits by inflating the cost (and thus "value" of the house), by adding elements like interior decoration, insurance and appliances. This is objectionable practice but in reality it is used often in collusion with bankers and agents to procure a loan when one is unable to find the down payment.
Largely, the Indian banking system believes that home prices will only go up, so even if you start with a loan that is 90% of the value today, it may only be 70% of the value tomorrow. However, the crash of home prices in the US and the west show that this is not a sound strategy.

What is Loan to Value Ratio?


Writing about oneself objectively

Question: I was recently updating some of my Stack Exchange profiles and I remembered how much I hate writing about myself. It isn't just Stack Exchange profiles either. It's resume cover letters. It's college application personal statements. It's blog and book jacket blurbs. It isn't the easiest thing in the world to come up with good things to say about myself and then when I do I have to be careful not to come off as arrogant. Now, I'm not asking for help overcoming my personal neurosis, but rather is there is an approach that will help me be objective when writing about myself and allow me to evaluate what to leave in and what to leave out?
Comment: +1 Because I could use an answer to this myself.  I usually just leave my profiles blank.
Comment: Maybe find another person like you and write each other's bios :-)
Comment: "How to write a good stack exchange profile?" could even be it's own question. Though it might vary between sites.
Answer: I guess this is more of a psychology question; but -- as a fiction writer -- you can try writing about a fictional character. Change your name!
It is a trick to distance yourself from the work; write about George or Mike instead of yourself, but using your own biography and accomplishments. In 1989, George did this; in 1991 George did that. Once you have described George well enough for readers to understand him; revise the profile, without adding or deleting anything, but to make it a first-person narrative.
As in fiction, to be realistic, George likely wouldn't reveal his worst flaws and sins up front. Everybody puts on their best face to meet strangers, and expects the same; so if you are completely honest and tell people you are "indecisive at times", they gather you are minimizing, and take it as a warning you are indecisive all the time, to the point you feel you need to warn people you are irritating.
I do a less extreme variation of this writing about my own past; I just imagine my past self as somebody I know, and have much in common with, but not the current me. Which I feel is true; I'm certainly a different person than I was as a teen, or soldier, or college student, etc.
Answer: I personally struggle a lot with writing about myself and worrying about coming off as arrogant as well. But, I do at least feel like I know myself reasonably well, due in part to a couple of things that I do:
-Write in a journal. There really isn't much of a formula to writing a journal, but I feel like if you write enough, you'll start to see patterns emerge. For example: looking back on my entries, I found a lot of entries where I said I was going to do something, but then I didn't end up doing it, which was a pretty surefire sign to me that I'm indecisive as all hell and not very proactive. (It's amazing how we need to do such tedious things to find the most obvious thing about ourselves)
-Do the self-authoring program. Now, this one does cost money, but I know personally that it helps a lot with self-confidence and finding purpose in life, which can tell you a lot about yourself.
Granted, these aren't exactly answering the very specific question you're asking, but I feel like if you know yourself well enough (Know what's most important to you, know which part of you is the most immutable, etc.), it can very well help you decide what to write and what not to write in any given situation.
Again, sorry for the somewhat indirect and maybe not immediately actionable answer, but I hope it offers something of value to you.
Answer: This is a big subject that probably can't be answered in a brief post, but some thoughts that come to mind:

Give objective facts, not subjective evaluations. For example, "I was valedictorian", not, "I was the smartest person in my class". Or, "I was responsible for managing the inventory for 20 stores", not "I was the only one who knew what was in the stores", etc. In general, avoid saying "I am/was the best ..." or "most important ..." or similar words. State the job responsibilities.
Don't be afraid to relate your accomplishments, but avoid overstating. "My re-organization plan saved the company $10 million", not "I saved the company."
Something I still struggle with: Should I mention honors or achievements that may be 100% factual, but just sound like bragging? Like I used to be a member of Mensa, the high IQ society. Should I say that, or tell what my score was on an IQ test? I generally don't, but I think that one is not clear-cut. In hazy cases like that, I think it might depend on how many other good things you can say about yourself. If you don't have easy-to-describe achievements -- whether projects completed on the job, sporting matches you've won, whatever is relevant -- I'd be more likely to include hazy things. If you've got plenty of clear-cut things, you don't need the debatable ones and can leave them out.
Comment: You can take it out of the first person in some cases, but not always.
Answer: First, let me just say that arrogance is underrated. And you're talking about pretended objectivity on a subjective topic. It very much is subjective. It feels stiff and wrong to be "objective" because it's very much not. Pretending as though you are just feels off. Truly, no matter how much you pretend, you are not actually objective when it comes to yourself. There's always some kind of bias. Even if that bias is over-correction. So be aware of that and play with it.
Most people reading these things aren't doing it for fun--they're doing it to get info, because they are curious or need it to make a decision.
Each one of these is a genre to itself (which makes this question too huge to completely cover)--for a blog or back cover you can be funny and irreverent.
So the very first thing is What do they (the reader) want and what do you (the writer)want? Basically, you have to ask yourself, as you do in most writing, what the reader is looking for in this piece of writing and what you want to convey to them.
If it's a college essay, the reader wants to know about your accomplishments and you want them to be impressed enough to get you into their program/give you a scholarship/whatever it is. If ever there was a place to brag, it's here. If it's a book jacket, you might want the reader to feel certain feelings about the author so they will pick up the book.
It's not bragging if it fulfills a necessary function.
2-to-1 rule. But merely fulfilling expectation isn't memorable, and the objective to be memorable is often part of what you want to convey. So if there's room to have fun, have fun. Somewhere in there, write about two boring things (valedictorian, winner of the newberry medal) to one irrelevant or interesting thing (once jumped out of a plane naked, a story for which you will have to interview me to find out about, OR is an expert cat cuddler OR the tip of my nose always sunburns, no matter how much sunscreen I apply). Make yourself a list called "Weird/Awesome Facts about Me."
How did you get there? There's being the Valedictorian and there's how you became the Valedictorian. Those are two different things and you can show humility if that's your goal. Accomplishments are one thing saying something like "I achieved the honor of Valedictorian. I could put that forth as evidence of my brilliance, but it's merely evidence that flashcards work. For the duration of my high-school career I was never without--my best friend enjoyed the experience of yelling vocab words at me as I played Diablo III."
When you talk about how you "got" to an accomplishment, you can give the reader a better picture of you as a person, not just a list of facts. In the above, you aren't just a Valedictorian, or a list of accomplishments, now, you're an actual person. You're the guy who carried flashcards everywhere--who got his friends to drill him even as they were having fun--and you are definitely a hard worker. Oh, and HUMBLE too. LOL.
Show, don't tell. You can't get around the fact that you are bragging. Come to peace with that. But your job isn't to TELL them you are awesome. It's to show them. Go and read Jay's entry--basically, he's advocating showing the results of awesome rather than just stating awesomeness. You show that you're good at being in charge by saying you managed a team and what that team did, and perhaps how they improved under you. But you don't just say that you're an awesome manager.
Repetition is boring. Each and every item you mention should have an objective, a la "what you want to show the audience." If several items fulfill the SAME objective, that's repetitive, and looks like you're bragging. An entire essay that can just be reduced down to "I am very smart," is a problem on so many levels. Say more than one thing in your subtext!
So, in answer to your question: is there is an approach that will help me be objective when writing about myself and allow me to evaluate what to leave in and what to leave out? I say, you are never going to be objective, you can only SEEM that way. But as for an evaluation of what to leave in and what to take out, just ask: Is it interesting? Does it give the reader what they want? Does it convey what I want? Is the subtext of what I am saying repetitive?

Writing about oneself objectively


When should I limp pre-flop?

Question: In almost every single poker article I've read, they say never limp pre-flop.
Is there any situation where is justifiable to limp pre-flop? If yes, when should I limp?
Comment: Only a slightly different question and could provide some insight: http://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/6856/mathematically-speaking-is-open-limping-that-bad
Answer: As a general rule, it is most ideal to limp with a hand that has good odds compared to the investment. This is where pot odds and implied odds come into play. This way you can know when it is getting too expensive for you to continue pre-flop versus the odds of getting a winning hand.
On a more loose/aggressive table I personally restrict myself to limping pre-flop with a hand that I would call a raise pre-flop with if it comes to it. This way I am not giving away money to the over aggressive players. This depends very much on position.
You ask:

justifiable to limp pre-flop? If yes, when should I limp?

The answer is yes, when your pot odds versus your investment makes sense. But it is very important to consider your position, image and the behaviour of the players in the hand, their positions and how they have acted in those positions in the past etc.
This Article provides a clear explanation of Pot Odds and touches on Implied Odds.
This Article is my favourite Implied Odds reference that I use.
I highly recommend at least touching on Reverse Implied Odds which will actually improve your pre-flop game and likely tighten your range (resulting in you getting out kicked less often, for example).
Answer: Need to differentiate between open limp and limp.  Open limp would be first to enter the pot and that is not standard play.  Typically you would enter with a raise.  You are not only getting money in the pot but you have fold equity and you get information.  If you open limp with AA to slow play the problem is if the board comes up 667 you have done nothing to get players off that range.  Most sources advised to open for the same raise - you might vary based on position and table but don't vary by hand.
Now limp call.  Say you have blinds / table that does not raise pre flop, will call post flop, and have trouble noticing a straight or flush. I would call 89, 78, 67, 56 suited from mid or late. Pretty much only if you are playing fish.  A table of play money that does not raise pre flop.  And if you are on that table and get a real hand punish with a pot size raise.
Even on a good table with a couple in the pot and stacks behind on the button and not too expensive I would call mid suited connector or a mid pair.  They are the type of hands you need to hit but could get a big payoff.  You are not looking to push players off the pot.
Answer: There are some scenarios where limping is fine.   Some live tables can play very oddly, where a limp from you can induce a series of limps behind and then a big raise if you want a big pot built pre flop.
Also in heads up or 3 handed play people can be very aggressive pre flop and limping can frequently induce a raise.
Answer: If you are in early position, you should limp with two "pretty good" cards that are not "top" cards for raising. These include two face cards (jack and higher) that aren't paired. You should raise with face card pairs, and also AK, suited or not.
If you are in late position, it depends what's happened in front of you.
If only one or two "early position" players are in, you need early position cards (described in the first paragraph) to compete. If "a lot" (four or five) people have called, you can limp with "promising" hands such as small pairs and "suited connectors," 5-4 or higher. If everyone else has folded, and you have a "top one quarter" hand, you should raise to force out one or both blinds, not limp.

When should I limp pre-flop?


Wheels for fat guy - 27.5" vs 29"

Question: As a 140kg, 1.8m tall (79.5cm inseam),  I will be mostly riding roads until I lose some weight, but I was thinking which wheels do you think would be better given my situation, given I want a mountain bike? Would the 29" be better since I will be mostly ride roads (at least at the start, until I lose weight and maybe try some off-road)?
Comment: It's not clear what your actual question is.  If you bought a 29" bike don't go spending more money to change the wheel size before even getting some experience with what you have!  At 140kg you probably want to look into getting a stronger high-spoke-count wheel regardless of wheel size.  Otherwise it's pretty much personal preference and we can't tell you which you prefer...
Comment: My bad, I removed the ambiguity, hopefully. Indeed, the size was the question, I did not intend to change the wheel on the 29er I got, but I was thinking if I should return it and swap it for a 27.5er. Thank you
Answer: In theory, a smaller wheel is stronger than a bigger wheel if hub and rim section are the same.
This is largely due to the length of the spoke and it's contributions to the stiffness/flex vs spoke braking force.
Whether the difference between a 27.5 wheel and a 29 wheel is in of itself enough to mean a real world differe, I don't think so.
I think a strongly made (ie specially made for heavier rider) 29er wheel, will be stronger than a generic OEM (for the masses) 27.5 wheel.
I would strongly suggest you pick the bike you will enjoy riding more, and replace the wheels with a stronger wheelset when you need to.
This is exactly what my friend (125kg) did, he bought a bike, and I built him a stronger rear wheel with a Hope Pro 4 hub, DT Swiss eBike specific spokes (brass nipples) and a downhill rim. It was heavy, it will outlast his bike frame...

Wheels for fat guy - 27.5" vs 29"


float image to integer type image

Question: I have a multispectral satellite image and I would like to "transform" each of the image bands into one with integer values. For example to stretch? the image between 0 and 255. Not sure how to proceed with this. I also thought I could make a histogram and replace each pixel value with the bin edge in which it falls into. I'm not sure. I'm currently working in python. Any thoughts on this?
Comment: If I'm interpreting your question correctly, I would do something like `x = floor(x * 255)` with numpy.
Comment: What does your image look like now? Oh, and if it was captured by a satellite/computer, it's already discrete.
Comment: Yeah, sorry about that. Bad habbit of mine. Image is float and I want to make it an integer.
Answer: You should check the Envi documentation (a standard tool for working with multi/hyper spectral images) on the stretches it uses to fit multi/hyperspectral data into 8 bits for display.
Here is the page on some of the stretches used, which apply an affine function to the pixel values and clip the values to the lowest and highest displayable value. In particular, look at the optimized linear stretch, which is the default one Envi uses to display things.
Answer: As pointed out by Scott in comment, the quick'n dirty way of doing it is to just multiply by 255 and taking the integer part of the result.
The actual answer is (unfortunately, it's a very common answer to many Image Processing tasks...) "it depends":

float images are usually assumed to have values between 0 and 1, but maybe it's not the case of your sensor, in which case you need to pre-multiply the values in th equi'n dirty solution by the inverse of the dynamic range of the data;
if you need to perform some contrast enhancement, you can apply this pre-multiplication channel-wise (by first computing the max value for each channel), for all the data at once (by looking for the max among all the channels), or you can allocate the dynamic range in a more astute way (for example by computing histograms as you suggest, or clustering on the data values...);
multispectral images contain usually several spectral channels ;-). If you want to visualize your data, then maybe you're also looking for a way to find a mapping between your data and Red-Green-Blue channels. Sensors that deliver Near Infrared-Red-Green data are usually remapped "as is" (following the ordering of the wavelengths), ie NIR -> Red, Red -> Green, Green -> Red, but composite values such as NDVI can be useful in some contexts;
if you have lots of input spectral wavelengths, then you need to choose between visualizing each channel independently, or in a cube...
Answer: I think your description make it harder to understand the question.
It would be easier if you show the range of float image you have.
Is it between 0 and 1?
if it is, so you want to cast it into 0-255 integer. right?
just multiply your image by 255 and round it to integer.
Note that, this casting will make your image worse (errors from rounding)

float image to integer type image


How do I remove a stuck kitchen aerator tip?

Question: I recently moved into a new apartment and need to remove the aerator tip on the Moen kitchen faucet to set up the countertop dishwasher I brought with me from my previous apartment. It was missing the aerator inside and had a bunch of mineral build up to begin with. I've tried everything I found suggested for this issue online and it just won't budge. I tried soaking in vinegar and spraying both inside outside edges of the piece with WD-40 to break up the mineral build up and any rust. I tried (clockwise from above) hand twisting, a wrench, and channel lock pliers both with a cloth and without since it was missing the actual aerator to begin with so I'm not concerned about scratching but it hasn't moved at all, all that I've accomplished is stripping the metal on it. Shy of replacing the entire faucet, is there anything else I can try?
Comment: Have you tried using the vice grips vertically, as in, placing the jaws one on the inside and one on the outside of it, the twisting? You'll probably get a lot more purchase on it that way ... sounds like the aerator housing is about dead anyway?
Comment: channel-locks (sliding-joint pliers) and vise grips (locking pliers) are different tools.
Comment: "clockwise from above"... make sure you are turning the right way. Counter-clockwise (anti-clockwise in the UK) is generally how you loosen faucet aerators. Describing rotation from different position perspectives can cause confusion.
Answer: If you look closely, many aerators have a couple flat spots on them, that you could tighten an adjustable wrench on to.  That or a strap wrench would have been my first tool.  But failing that, and the lack of desire to preserve the original finish, the curved jaw vice grips pictured above should work.
The next level, replacement wise, would be to file some flat sides onto the doomed aerator and use a wrench.
Dave.
Answer: I had the similar situation. Finally I used my longest locked plier to unclog it. Yes a lot of metal shed scratched off from the aerator, but it is cheap to replace with a few bucks. Much worthy than changing the whole sink faucet system.
Answer: ...and following on my comment, locking pliers would be my gripping tool of choice. this flavor with curved jaws:

Not this flavor with straight jaws.

However, for the level of stuck you have, I would also use a hammer, in conjunction with the locking pliers - put the things on so they are like this picture looking from above, quite tightly. Tap, don't beat (or at least don't start with beating) on the heavier handle with the screw adjuster (making this the unscrew direction is the point of putting on like the picture when looking down from above). If the jaws slide, stop, unclamp, tighten the screw, and clamp harder. The shock of the hammering will help to break things loose. Many small tappings may be more effective (and certainly less damaging to the tools and faucet) than just beating on it as hard as you can.
Answer: Things expand when heated, and metal is great at this...but the trick is to heat it without running the finish of the metal.  If your hot water is hot enough to scald you, that may be enough to loosen it.  Otherwise you could try wrapping it in a few layers of tinfoil and using a candle or a LIGHT dose of flame from a blowtorch.  If you have a heat gun, one would be ideal, or possibly a strong hair dryer.  Heat the stuck aerator part more than the neck of the faucet (So it expand more than the threads of the other piece) and then try to remove it with vice grips or pliers.  You might be amazed at the difference.
Also try CLR cleaner for the mineral deposits and use a small rubber sheet to wrap around the faucet while you use tools so you get a good grip without scratches.


Is it beneficial to play blindfolded chess?

Question: I've played only two blindfold games so far, but it was against someone who was maybe at a 1000 uscf rating strength, and hence was fairly easy to beat, and once against my friend, who's also rated about 1650, like myself. I also managed to beat him with a sneaky tactical shot, but it was a lot more challenging, as I found it hard to remember where certain pieces were. I've also read that while it benefits your board vision for tournament games, it puts too much strain on your mind to be beneficial overall. Is this true? Any other arguments for/against playing blindfold chess?
Comment: something weird happened to me recently, I was analyzing a position in the middle of one of my games and it was very complicated, after a while when I concluded my sac was sound, (literally) after I blinked the pieces moved back, I was a bit scared...
Comment: I have played several games to a pretty decent level, the reason I got to that pretty decent level was that I am playing the game in my head pretty much 24/7. In the shower, on the toilet, behind the wheel, you name it. I'm bad at chess, I cannot play blindfolded, I cannot play in my head. I think learning that would be key to serious improvement for me.
Answer: In my opinion
I cannot speak to the health benefits or drawbacks of playing blindfold chess (which I find to be, in my opinion, baseless).
What I can say is from experience. I have attempted playing blindfold chess when I was not a very strong player and found it challenging and not worthwhile. However, as my chess progressed I found playing blindfold to be a lot easier, and was even recently able to play a game to the 62nd move where I checkmated my friend. It took 90 minutes.
My main point is that that blindfold chess more than likely does not affect your chess ability. It is your chess ability that affects your blindfold chess.
Here is are some conclusions from an in depth study
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2972788/
In their review of the literature, Hearst and Knott document a number of notable conclusions that may surprise chess players and non-chess players alike:
The general memory of chess masters, including those able to play many blindfold games simultaneously, is no better than that of the average person.
Highly skilled players can form long-term memories of full-board chess positions within seconds of viewing them.
High level chess skill (not just blindfold chess) requires a recognition-action repertoire of some 50,000 to 100,000 features of chess positions and associated responses.
Some of the strongest masters find the actual sight of a chess position to be more distracting than helpful when thinking ahead during a game.
Practicing blindfold chess improves sighted chess skill.
Some of the strongest blindfold chess masters claim that the strength of their blindfold play is similar to that of their sighted play.
Bonus material
In case you really want to read up on the subject: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1999d.pdf
Answer: I cannot speak for whether it ever improved my chess, but I did try several Chess Visualization exercises. (This was a few years back, and I was inspired by the Amber Tournament where Super GM's played Blindfold games that blew me away.)
If you do a web search for "Chess Visualization exercises" you can find many leads, and some of them are worth it. (I don't recommend spending money on any though. There's plenty available for free.)
One sample: Chess Eye
I found two uses for these:

When I had a few minutes to kill, I could attempt some of these exercises when I didn't have a board or computer in front of me.
The biggest value for me from these attempts at blindfold was that I could follow variations much more easily. If you watch high profile games on ICC, there will be a lot of people kibbitzing lines non-stop. Being able to follow them made me better appreciate the positions.

Other than that, I am not sure if full blindfold games have use, except to maybe impress non-chess players.
Answer: I would think developing your board vision must be somewhat useful although I doubt it means a significant difference in playing strength. Blindfold seems a handy way to improve board vision as it can be fun, and you have feedback when you forget the position. Intuitively, a nice benefit of improved board vision would be that it is easier to study. So many chess books and articles are provided with only occasional diagrams; consequently, readers are often utilizing the same board vision skills necessitated by blindfold chess.
Answer: From my personal experience playing Blindfold is absolutely beneficial.  I tried it pretty consistently for several weeks many years back and suddenly, despite being rated around 1800, I was mowing through 2100 players at my local club at blitz.  Blindfold can only help your visualization ability since you not only only have to visualize future moves but also the current position.  And I find the "strain on the brain" argument to be utterly absurd.
Answer: From the following research I gather that the issue was/is under some debate though most people believe that it doesn't harm your health.  I personally don't have an opinion on the subject.
In 1930 the USSR banned displays of blindfold chess because they thought it was bad for the health.
That same article states that:

Botvinnik spoke out against it, which may be why his top student, Kasparov, has declined to test his blindfold play. Most of the Melody Amber players agree that it is more tiring than a regular game even with a faster time control.

I also found several older threads on the topic where the topic was debated.  One on Chess.com and one on the Red Hot Pawn forums.
A user from the Red Hot Pawn thread found a study by several universities that goes into the subject on page 5.  They state:

Hearst and Knott (2005) generally find that supposed examples
  of serious health hazards from playing simultaneous blindfold chess are unfounded.

That study also says:

Similar training procedures were a commonplace part of
  instructional techniques in the Soviet Union, and even the three Polgar sisters, now among the
  best woman players in the world (Judit Polgar, the youngest, competes at male world
  championship level), have commented on how learning blindfold play at the age of 5 or 6 helped
  them to develop certain chess skills. However, we do agree with Gobet that the causality goes
  both ways: blindfold practice may improve chess skill, and the ability to play blindfolded
  improves as general chess skill improves. There is hardly any master we know who cannot play
  at least one or two games blindfolded, even without any special training at that form of chess.
Answer: Based on my experience, absolutely!
In a nutshell:

It improve your calculation and visual representation abilities
It increase your capacity of concentration (you have to work quite hard to be able to play your first full blindfold game!)
It boosts your self-confidence when you play regular over-the-board games
and best of all, this fun and rewarding! Playing (and winning) a blindfold game against a family casual player will establish your Chess reputation in the family for the years to come! :-)

If you want to more about blindfold play in general, you can take a look at some post I wrote on this very topic:

http://improveyourchessornot.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-black-art-of-calculation-blindfold.html
http://improveyourchessornot.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-black-art-of-calculation-blindfold_20.html

Cheers!
Comment: Welcome to Stack Exchange. Could you edit your answer and add a summary of the links' content? Stack Exchange is dedicated to being a repository of complete questions and answers, and if the links ever rot, your answer would no longer be complete. There's nothing wrong with links, it's just that the answer should be able to stand without them.


What is Bi-directional Traceability Matrix?

Question: How is it different from a Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM)? Please explain with real life scenarios and examples. Also include or link reference material that might help!
Comment: http://sqa.fyicenter.com/FAQ/Manual-Testing/What_is_bidirectional_traceability_.html
Answer: Requirement Traceability matrix maps the user requirements with the test cases. In simple words, the matrix helps in determining if all the requirements have been covered(i.e there are test cases which can be traced back to the requirements).
There are 3 types of RTM:

Forward:Requirements->Test Cases
Backward: Test Cases->Requirements
Bi-directional: Forward+Backward

Please refer the following link for a better understanding:   http://www.guru99.com/traceability-matrix.html
Answer: Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward (i.e., from requirements to end products and from end product back to requirements).
It means tracing the code from requirements and vice-versa throughout a Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
When you are in the course of your project, your fundamental aim would be to ensure that each and every requirement is translated into code. Tracing right from the requirements through the architecture and design, to the code, to ensure that the objectives or more precisely requirements have been met is referred to as the process of establishing Forward Traceability. A well maintained requirement documentation, like RTM, can be your guide in this process.
When you think about maintenance, invariably, due to economic and technical considerations your client will come back to you. At this juncture, you will debug; or rather you will hunt for various types of bugs. You should be in a position to go back to the requirements of corresponding code or architectural components. To achieve this you ought to trace back your code and design to their corresponding requirements. This process is called Backward Traceability.
You can read more about the entire traceability process here.
Answer: Some definitions:
A trace link is a specified association between a pair of artifacts, one comprising the source and one comprising the target artifact. … [It] is effectively bidirectional. Where no concept of directionality is given or implemented is is referred to solely as an association.
When a trace link is traversed from source to target, is is used in the primary direction. Where link semantics are provided, they provide a way to "read" the traversal.
When a trace link is traversed from target to source, it is used in reverse direction. Where link semantics may no longer be valid.
Bidirectional trace link is a term used to refer to the fact that a trace link can be used both in a primary and in reverse link direction.
Here's a discussion about bidirectional traceability and how it may be achieved.
Answer: Bidirectional traceability needs to be implemented both forward and backward (i.e., from requirements to end products and from end product back to requirements).
When the requirements are managed well, traceability can be established from the source requirement to its lower level requirements and from the lower level requirements back to their source. Such bidirectional traceability helps determine that all source requirements have been completely addressed and that all lower level requirements can be traced to a valid source.
For more information please visit here or here


Google Adwords - Conversion lag time

Question: In google adwords I notice that there is a delay of at least two days before conversions are reported, but the rest of the data (clicks, cost, ctr, etc) shows up almost real-time. Is there any documentation that specifies a standard for why or how long it takes for conversions to show up on the adwords interface?
Answer: The click and the recorded conversion needn't happen at the same time. Google track conversions for up to 30 days after the click (http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=86282). Whilst the help text doesn't say why there's a delay I would guess that given that the two things can be separated by time they are waiting until there's a couple of days of statistics to give you. As that page says, the conversions are counted on the day the click occurs, not the conversion, so if you rerun the report later the figures for a given day may go up.
Comment: +1 - Interesting, the recommended articles on the side from the link you provided reference 24 hours for how long a conversion could take, but we never see it happen under 48 hours. Its strange that in the adwords interface they don't indicate if you should be seeing conversions for your selected date range. This must confuse a lot of people who don't figure out there's lag time.
Answer: I'm pretty sure while studying for the adwords exam it mentions the cookie file stays present for up to 30 days, so the conversion can take place up to 30 days after the click actually occurred.

Google Adwords - Conversion lag time


Acquiring domain name but from Japanese registrar

Question: How do I acquire a domain belongs to a Japanese registrar? Registrant detail is under privacy protection service.
Answer: All domain owners that use private registration options will be issued a unique email address via some kind of proxy that forwards emails to the domain owner, these will often look something like: email@example.com. This information is normally obtainable through any good online whois service.
How you decide to translate your information is your decision and can be done in various ways through online translation services to domain consultancy firms. It's also worth mentioning that the owner may not decide to reply to your emails...he/she or the company may not want to sell the domain.
Other methods could include:

Copyright/Trademark Infringement legal proceeding could force the registrar to release the details.
Using a whois history service, maybe the owner put privacy settings on after the domain was purchased.
Some registrars sell the hidden information (very rare, but does happen).
Answer: You obtain it in the usual way - make a deal with the present owner. You can either simply accept the domain's username and password and continue with the present registrar, or follow the applicable domain transfer process. Note that not every registrar will handle .jp domains.
If the current owner does not wish to sell (your question is not clear) then you don't get the domain.
Answer: I have dealt with this before. My best advice is don't waste your time. You can do 100 whois lookups and chances are you still won't get anywhere. I would not be surprised if it turns out to be not a Japanese registrar at all. Just track the domain over time and maybe you will get lucky.


Length of time to wait before accepting an answer

Question: Is there any established etiquette as far as accepting answers? In particular, if there is a correct answer posted, are there any guidelines for how long one should wait before accepting? Similarly, is there a length of time beyond which it would be frowned upon if an answer was not accepted, given that there are satisfactory answer(s)?
Answer: It is good practice to wait a few days, for the following reasons:

People are less likely to look at a question with an accepted answer. Delaying acceptance means that more people will see the question, hence contribute votes or new answers.
People are less likely to answer a question with an accepted answer. More answers means you may get a better perspective on the question and/or a correction to an answer that you were originally going to accept.
Comment: I suppose I should try this out by refraining from accepting this answer immediately? :)
Answer: I think it depends on the question (and on the answer). If the question is "what's wrong with the following calculation?" and the answer is "in the 17th line, you wrote $2+2=3$," then you smack your forehead and accept the answer right away. You're not going to get a better answer, and the people who are dissuaded from looking at your question will not be missing much.
If you do decide to wait a few days before accepting an answer, I think it's polite to leave some comment to show what you're doing, lest it seem that you have abandoned the question. For example, you might try to explain what you're looking for in an answer beyond what's already been provided. More than once I've left a comment on a question along the lines of "you've had four good answers, and two days to think about them, and you haven't raised any objections, and you haven't accepted an answer - what's up?" Maybe I'm just a hothead, but I suspect more than a few people agree with me, they just aren't as rude as I am.
Having said all that, I do agree with Qiaochu's bullet points.
Comment: @Gerry, @Asaf: I think two days is a very short time for such a comment. Nobody wants a answer accepted that hasn't been understood. At least for me it often takes several hours at a stretch to thoroughly verify a proof or follow up on a hint. Some people just don't have that time every day of the week.
Comment: @Stefan, the kind of problem where I'd get rude after two days is the kind where, making my best guess as to the mathematical abilities of the asker and the sophistication of the answers, I think two days is more than enough. I went back to have a look at the last time I left such a comment and found my memory had failed me: the asker had, not two days, but *five months* to think about the four answers on offer. And I see that one of the answers has now been accepted, so I've deleted my rude comment.
Comment: I strongly agree with you (and probably at least as rude as you are :-))
Comment: @Stefan: I usually comment about these things when they are a couple of weeks old. I do think that without at least a comment to say that you try to understand the given answer is impolite (to the least).
Comment: @Asaf: If we're talking about a couple of weeks, I agree.


How to delete timing in powerpoint on Mac

Question: I recorded a presentation using powerpoint. But when I present again using the same slides, my speech and timing have been recorded. I am able to delete the speeches but the slides always automatically flip to the next page following the timing of my recorded presentation. I tried using Slide Show tab -> uncheck Use Timings. But the timing information is still there.
Is there anyway to remove the recorded timing?
Answer: OK - this one's pretty quick and easy... so despite the fact that this isn't really a graphic design question, and that we're neither a tutorial service nor a stand-in for any one software manufacturer's tech support or training...
Click "Record Slide Show" in the Set Up section of the Slide Show tab; point to "Clear" and choose what you want to delete - in this case you'll select "Timings on All Slides."

Edit: On PowerPoint 2016 for Mac (per OP's Comment below) there is no equivalent drop down - the trick here is to go into the Set Up Slideshow tab and switch to manual timing, then close that dialogue. Then you can re-record the slideshow to set new timings if you need to, or of course you can just run manual if you'd prefer. There isn't a directly equivalent "clear all timings" on the Mac version thanks to Microsoft's continuing push to be sure that people using MS Office on Mac get a clear message (they think the message we hear is 'Mac sux', what we actually hear is 'MS is duplicitous and hasn't stopped with chicanery yet') though there is no technical reason they couldn't provide an exact equivalent if they chose to.

Hope that helps.
Comment: Thanks but I'm using a Mac which doesn't have a dropdown menu.
Comment: @Dr_Hope: Thanks for editing your question's title to match your usecase - I've also editing my answer for that usecase too.
Answer: I was able to clear automatic transition timings from my slides using Powerpoint 16.16.6 for Mac by going to the Transitions Tab, unselecting the "After" check box, and hitting "Apply to all".
Answer: Running manual didn't clear timings from my custom (looping) show. In fact, unless timings are cleared, the few looping/timed slides will hold presenter view hostage—even if you delete the custom show, which I did.
Brad's answer pointed me over to Transitions. My After checkbox wasn't checked but with those few looping/timed slides selected, I just checked/unchecked the box anyway, and that freed them up and cleared the timings.
Comment: Welcome to Graphic Design! Please refrain from unnecessary jabs at companies or people. Your answer is valid without it.


How can opening of a door on small plane cause a drop in altitude?

Question: Last week in Ecuador I was on a flight in a small plane (twin engine prop, full with pilot and 5 passengers). The passenger door opened in flight. I was in a position to grab the door and pull it back to the plane and hold it (against a very strong pull) until I could slam it partially shut and then hold it in place until we landed. It didn't seem like that big of a deal except when the door first flew open the plane seemed to drop about 50 feet. What caused the drop in altitude?
Comment: Did you notice that the altimeter indication dropped by 50ft, or was this really a change in altitude? Opening a door will affect the air pressure inside the cabin and thus also the altimeter readings of mechanical altimeters.
Comment: When you say "dropped" do you mean that the nose came down and you lost some altitude or that the plane dropped 50ft like an elevator?  Or did you even feel the drop at all?
Comment: Is your question more about the door opening or why the airplane dropped 50 feet? You talked about the former a lot more than the dropped altitude.
Answer: In an unpressurized plane the door opening is less of an issue than in a pressurized plane but there are still some issues it presents. Its common for planes to have multiple latching mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening. In some cases they system is not perfect like this AD issued for the DA40 relating to the doors coming off in flight (due to improper closing it appears). Being able to run with out a door or open it in flight is even key for things like para-trooping and skydiving

Depending on the orientation of the door the biggest issue I would foresee is the door shearing off and damaging part of the empennage. This could a have serious if not potentially fatal impact on the plane.
Physically speaking the open door will create drag on the plane which may have been related to the decent you felt. It could also have been an inadvertent reaction by the pilot to the possibly loud noise.
On somewhat of a side note, most aircraft doors are oriented in such a way that the airflow will more or less push them shut (on small GA planes/non pressurized planes). Thus most doors open forwards like the ones on many pipers

Or vertically up so gravity will close them (note the baggage hatch). I would assume this is intentional but it may just be coincidence as that is also how car doors open. Along the opening lines, it is standard emergency procedure in small airplanes to unlatch the door before a forced landing incase the accident mangles the door locks.
For what its worth some planes are even flown with the hatch open most the time (pictured on the ground here but flown in the same config)

Here is a nice article written by a pilot about why it would be very hard (basically impossible) to do on a pressurized plane.
Comment: You can also use the door of the PA-28 as a control surface to make right turns. - haha
Comment: Most car doors open that way for precisely the same reason most light-aircraft doors do (airflow pushing an unlatched door closed rather than open); there's a reason doors that open from the front and are hinged at the rear are called "[suicide doors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_door)".  Also, the DA40 AD link breaketh.
Answer: There can be many possible explanations to the Drop in altitude, and the most likely is being explained below:

Increase in drag due to opening of the door, would result in decrease in velocity of the plane. This would reduce the lift and hence a loss in altitude would be observed. But, as soon as the altitude would have dropped, the pilot would have observed it and increased the throttle to counter that, and hence stabilizing the plane mid air.


Lenses (refractor) or mirrors (reflector) telescope?

Question: What differentiates, in terms of practical quality, not technical implementation, a refractor from a reflector telescope?
Why would one prefer a refractor over a reflector, when reflectors come with such large diameters at a smaller price?
Answer: There are actually three main telescope types, refractor, reflector, and catadioptric (which uses both lenses and mirrors to form its image). Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why all three are manufactured currently.
From a practical standpoint, refractors offer the sharpest and most contrasty images in a given size, because of their unobstructed apertures. Reflectors offer less sharpness and contrast because of the presence of a diagonal mirror and its supports in the middle of the main optical path. This can be minimized by reducing the size of the obstruction to under 20% of the aperture (by diameter). Catadioptric telescopes offer the poorest sharpness and contrast because of their more complex optical systems, which also almost always include a large central obstruction. In return, they provide extremely compact designs which are easier to transport and mount. Catadioptrics using a Maksutov corrector tend to perform better than those using a Schmidt corrector because their central obstructions are smaller and their correctors use simple spherical curves.
Part of the advantage of refractors is countered by their chromatic aberration. All refractors suffer from this to some extent, leading to colour fringing around bright objects. It can be reduced in two ways: going to a long focal ratio (f/15 or longer) or using special low dispersion glass (ED or Extra-low Dispersion or fluorite). These solutions each have their own disadvantage: telescopes with long focal ratios are difficult to mount solidly, so require large expensive mounts; telescopes with ED or fluorite lenses are often very expensive.
For most amateur astronomers, a high quality reflector offers the best compromise in terms of cost and aperture.
Answer: Lenses are expensive, and have an upper limit on their size (when they get too big they get really expensive, and you start seeing a lot more aberration effects). Really cheap telescopes are usually refractors (at least from what I've seen), but if you want a respectable telescope, refractors climb in price rather quickly, in my experience.
Reflector telescopes are more common, smaller in size, generally less expensive and offer higher quality pictures without some of the aberration that comes with a refractor.
Answer: First of all, Carson is correct in that refractor lenses climb exponentially in price as the size of the lens grows.
Reflecting telescopes are very useful for astronomy, and it's easy to spend a small amount of money and end up with a hefty tube that can gather a ton of light with very few drawbacks.
On the other hand, a high-quality small to midsize (and thus more transportable) refractor can more-easily perform many other useful duties such as daytime photography, easier viewing of land-based targets, and serving as an all-around travel (or spontaneous use) scope.
Apochromats, which feature some of the best lenses among refractors, have fallen in price considerably in recent years, so it's now possible to obtain a very versatile, top-quality refractor in the 60 to 110mm range. Beyond that size, many of these tasks become much more difficult and require increasingly sophisticated mounting setups -- this is especially true of photography.
Most amateur astronomers I've talked to recommend switching to a reflector at that point, because the primary use of larger scopes at that point becomes astronomy, and it is here that reflectors have a great bang-for-buck.
Answer: Refractors suffer from fewer optical aberrations than reflectors because they have only two elements in their optical assembly, making it easier to align and maintain collimation.
The biggest problem with refractors is chromatic aberration, which can be corrected to a certain degree by Apochromatic lenses, but isn't completely eliminated.
For deep sky objects which are visually faint, chromatic aberration is not a significant problem, and hence refractors may be preferred.
For solar system objects and brighter DSOs, the chromatic aberration might become significant.
Answer: Reflector versus Refractor has been tossed back and forth for a very long time.  The refractor is better than a reflector beginning with the issue of collimation.  Refractors are constructed in such a manner that the doublet on the front of the scope has "set" spacing. There is either an air gap or an oil gap.  The size and quality of the objective lens determines the cost.  AstroPhysics makes a six inch VERY high quality refractor.  Other manufacturers to consider are William Optics and Televue for smaller size ones. Chromatic abberation is NOT common complaint amongst owners of these products made by the formerly mentioned makers.
Reflectors, usually referred to as Newtonians, have a constant collimation issue every time you move them any real distance.  Astrophotography is just as possible optically with either refractors or reflectors.  The second cost factor is the telescope mount.  A German Equatorial Mount, (GEM), is the only GOOD way to track any celestial object with accuracy and elimination of field rotation.
There are only one or two other types of optical systems beside these commonly available. One of the most common is the Schmidt Cassegrain telescope or SCT.  It is a specialized type of reflector that is focused by moving the mirror forward and back within the optical tube assembly or OTA.  The eyepiece views through a hole in the center of the spherical mirror.
Answer: Lots of good advise from others. From a practical perspective (I own both a reflector as well as an achromatic and apochromatic refractor) there are a few more thing worth stressing:
1) for a given aperture a small quality refractor offers the best image with the highest contrast and does so without any fiddling: no collimation required, and no waiting for the scope to cool down and the image to stabilize.
2) Small refractors can be amazingly portable. What is your main observation site (car trip required?) will often determine what is your best scope.
3) Another important aspect is the answer to the question: what objects do you want to observe? People who are happy to view brighter objects are often best off with a small, portable refractor. If you are intested in 'faint fuzzies', you need large aperture (and an observation site low in light pollution).
Many amateur astronomers start with a Dobsonian reflector as these provide by far the most affordable aperture. Many later buy a small refractor as a second "grab-n-go" scope. In the end, the scope you use most often is your best scope.


If the Doctor was the last of the Time Lords, what happened to Susan?

Question: During the First Doctor's era, the Doctor's granddaughter Susan was left on 22nd Century Earth. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Time War affected Earth; as the Gelth said, the War was "invisible to more primitive species". So why did the Doctor appear to forget about her when he described himself as the last of the Time Lords? If she really was his granddaughter, then she would have been at least partly Gallifreyan; and given the physical damage Donna Noble experienced when she became the Doctor-Donna, it's possible that an only-part-Gallifreyan might not have been able to survive, implying she was fully Gallifreyan.
Comment: Gallifreyan != Time Lord.
Comment: I'm not sure what OP's point is. We met lots of other Gallifreyans throughout the original series, both Time Lords (and Ladies) and not, but the Time War wiped them all out; presumably including Susan.
Comment: @DanielRoseman I think OP is saying that it appears the Time War mostly affected Time Lords/species that weren't on Earth, and last we knew of Susan she was on Earth, so she might not have been involved in it.
Comment: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Susan_Foreman#Fate
Answer: According to extended canon (in particular, the Big Finish audio drama All Hands on Deck), Susan was recruited into the Time War by the Time Lords despite the Doctor's best efforts to keep her away from it - so when "New Who" came about (i.e. the 9th Doctor onwards), she was as lost as the rest of her race, making the Doctor's claim of being last of the Time Lords still true. Her current whereabouts are unknown, but she may have returned along with Gallifrey in more recent seasons.
Carole Ann Ford appeared as Susan in the 20th and 30th anniversary specials "The Five Doctors" and "Dimensions in Time" (the former being canon but the latter much less so), and she was involved in some of the 50th anniversary pieces such as having a bit part in the docu-drama "An Adventure in Time and Space", so it's not impossible for her to return in the role, but whether it happens will be up to her and the new show-runners.
Comment: I personally hold with the idea that if an event hasn't happened on screen, its place in continuity is questionable or in flux. The TV show can tell a tale that directly contradicts with a book or audio play, and the show absolutely takes precedence.
Comment: Which is a fair point to take, especially in a series that's already so wibbly-wobbly with its continuity. Pre-Disney, there were about 4 different levels of Star Wars canon ranging from "Only stuff from the movies" all the way down to "Holiday Special and/or popular fan theories".
Comment: @VBartilucci Big Finish at least I see as far more acceptable to take as "canon" than any other external materials, given that some events of it have at least been referenced in-show (such as in the 50th anniversary) which gives it a lot of credence/would appear to be an attempt to canonise.
Answer: The Doctor claims he is the last of the Time Lords because he thinks he killed them all when he destroyed Gallifrey, however it has been shown at various times this is not the case. The Master/Missy is the most obvious proof of this.
I also don't know if it has ever been truly established that Susan was the Dr's genetic granddaughter.
Comment: The Doctor has also been known to say "I used to a father, and a grandfather"... So I'm pretty sure he does include Susan in his concept of Time Lords he killed. At least he's pretty sure Susan is dead as well.
Comment: Or if Susan isnt genetically his daughter, then she is human and has probably died of old age. But the fact is he didnt destroy gallifrey, he only thinks he did, until he finds it.
Comment: @Richard:  In the short story "Birth of a Renegade" (published in the *Doctor Who* twentieth anniversary special magazine), Susan was from Gallifrey but not the Doctor's actual granddaughter.
Comment: "...truly established that Susan was the Dr's genetic granddaughter." cf Lungbarrow [1] (at least, the first edition), where the Doctor is possibly a re-loomed clone of somebody famous.

[1] http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Lungbarrow_(novel)
Comment: In *An Unearthly Child* The Doctor says "**We** are not of this race. **We** are not of this earth". It is implied that she and the Doctor are the same race. At the very least it is established Susan is **not** a human.
Answer: Your question of what happened to Susan has been well answered by @Conman according to extended canon.
At this time only the extended canon of Big Finish productions have made any reference to Susan after The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Susan's appearance in The Five Doctors is of course not meant to be after The Doctor left her behind on Earth, but rather during her time travelling with him. Like all instances of The Doctor's timelines crossing, these are anomalies which, although real, cease to be part of all but the current Doctor's established timeline. This is established in The Day of The Doctor when Ten leaves Eleven behind and it is said that Ten will not remember it. Also, the canonical short Time Crash attempted to explain away the aged appearances of previous Doctors (obviously due to the actors having aged) whenever their paths cross by saying that being in same place "shorts out the time differential". We can only speculate how this could affect companions traveling with them.
As to your supplemental question of why the Doctor appeared to forget about her when he described himself as "the last of the Time Lords", I have two possible lines of reasoning:
1. Susan is a Gallifreyan, but not a "Time Lord"
Some argue there is a difference, and that Time Lords are just Gallifreyans in possession of a TARDIS. As Susan was left behind on Earth to live as a human and start a life with David, The Doctor may not have considered her to be a Timelord, regardless of whether she is a full Gallifreyan or not.
2. She really isn't fully Gallifreyan
You suggested that a "part-Gallifreyan might not have been able to survive", citing the example of Donna. However Donna was physically fully human having been born so. Her human brain was not capable of holding The Doctor's mind. On the other hand, The Doctor himself is supposedly half-human. This idea established in the Eighth Doctor's only TV appearance was not popular and has sometimes been dismissed; yet that pilot has been embraced as canonical by subsequent series, and Moffat toyed with the concept during the story arc involving Ashildr. A prophecy of a "hybrid" left some believing it could refer to The Doctor as a half-human-half-Gallifreyan, and when The Doctor confirmed it was "me" it was deliberately ambiguous as to whether or not he meant himself or Ashildr who was now known by the name "Me".
Here's some supposition on the possibility of why Susan could never be a Timelord. The 5th Doctor story The Two Doctors suggested that the secret of Time Travel in a TARDIS was connected to Timelord physiology contained in their eye. The Sontarans were unable to get their version of a TARDIS to work without The Doctor's eye. The idea that the eye of harmony on the 8th Doctor's TARDIS was symbiotically connected to The Doctor's own eye, as well as the idea that trainee Timelords had to stare into the vortex may have been attempts to build on that idea. It was when The Master saw The Doctor's eye that he realised he was half-human.
If TARDIS travel through time is only possible due to a symbiotic connection to Gallifreyan physiology then maybe hybrids like The Doctor, as well as any future children and grandchildren, may only be True Timelords if they inherit the correct genes from their Gallifreyan heritage. We do not know who Susan's mother or grandmother were - they may have been human too, further diluting Susan's Gallifreyan heritage.
Comment: Just wondering - how do we know that Susan's appearance in "The Five Doctors" was during her time travelling with the First Doctor and not after she was left on Earth?
Comment: @Wallnut Okay, I can't be dogmatic about it, but the first Doctor regenerated without Susan, ending his timeline. In *The Five Doctors* each of his incarnations were "scooped" from their timelines. So for her appearance in The Five Doctors alone with The Doctor to be *after* her departure from the original series we would have to assume the first Doctor returned to her at some point before his regeneration and that this was never documented in the series. As the first Doctor was never seen traveling alone it would be unlikely this could have happened and other companions not scooped up too.
Comment: I wonder how the "Doctor's eye" hypothesis holds up against River Song?  Born of two humans (so, seemingly, no Gallifreyan genes) and had only a single heart, but able to regenerate (because she was conceived in the TARDIS), and able to fly the TARDIS "better" than the Doctor.
Comment: @ZeissIkon Admittedly that is a spanner in the works. On most occasions we saw River fly the TARDIS The Doctor was also present, so that explains that. But on those occasions we *didn't* see her fly it (she revealed in *The Wives of River Song* that she borrows it without him knowing) can we say that she definitely used it to travel in *time*, and not just through *space*?
Comment: River Song gets around well enough without the Doctor (even to the point of using a vortex manipulator for time travel) that there's no sensible reason she'd need to "borrow" the TARDIS unless she needs to travel in time.  Also, it shouldn't matter -- the TARDIS normally "dematerializes" even when it's just going, say, from Mars to London (as in "The Waters of Mars").
Comment: @ZeissIkon True. But it is established that she *does* borrow the TARDIS, for whatever reason. And dematerialisation is merely in place of a traditional "lift-off". Once it has left planet surface it *physically* travels through space and the time vortex. We've seen it chase taxis, collide with spaceships, and orbit planets. The travel has never been instantaneous. Since Nine it has been a lot *faster*, but there is still a physical journey. Previous doctors casually walked around the console twiddling knobs, or sat down with jelly babies and a book while they took a journey.
Answer: We don't know where Susan is but I believe she is still alive somewhere in the universe, maybe she lives on a farm now with a big barn full of time lord technology, or possibly in a cave somewhere, or out at sea?, we don't know but Susan Is definitely not dead.
Comment: Hi there. Is this only a guess or could you [edit] evidence in?


newly installed 12.04 cannot connect to internet

Question: I am a Comp Sci student and I had to replace my dev laptop with an old Dell Inspiron 1150. First tried loading Ubuntu 13.10 but it wouldn't render graphics correctly on this old machine, so I put on 12.04 LTS instead.
During install from DVD, it recognized internet connection (I had an ethernet cable plugged into my wireless router and the linksys wireless-G adapter plugged into the bus, so I don't know which connection it was using). But now that the OS is installed, it says Network Disconnected and I can't get it to recognize either connection.
the output of
sudo ifconfig

is:
Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask 255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
RX packets:192 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:192 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:15744 (15.7 KB) TX bytes:15744 (15.7 KB)

and the results of
sudo lshw -C network

is:
*-network UNCLAIMED
description: Ethernet controller
product: BCM4401 100Base-T
vendor: Braodcom Corporation
physical id: 1
bus info: pci@0000:02:01.0
version: 01
width: 32 bits
clock: 33MHz
capabilities: pm bus_master cap_list
configuration: latency=32
resources: memory:fcffe00-fcffffff memory:fd000000-fd003fff

I manually typed this in, so hoepfully no typos
Comment: "unclaimed" usually means that there is no driver installed - please search here for broadcomm or BCM.
Answer: try requesting a new IP from the DHCP
sudo dhclient -r

releases current
sudo dhclient eth0

Renews IP-address of device.
Comment: "Cannot find device "eth0""


Can we move beyond "moderators pro tempore" and elect moderators?

Question: I think it's time for a change.
Comment: Dear @978, @Isaac, I was not offered a position, but I do not think the issue is important now. In any case, there is no shortage of  people who would be more qualified than I for moderator duties, especially now that the site has grown.
Comment: To be fair to @978, the moderator selection was meant to be temporary and there is nothing wrong in asking if we need a new election for mods (given that we are out of beta). He could have phrased it more nicely, I suppose. I have deleted my earlier comment.
Comment: @97832123: I will point out to you *again* that some of us are, by your definition, mathematicians, so stop implying that we are not.  Do you know for a fact that Akhil was not offered a position?
Comment: Related: [ *Is there a time when we elect non-temporary moderators on an SE 2.0 site ?* ](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/64592/is-there-a-time-when-we-elect-non-temporary-moderators-on-an-se-2-0-site) (no official answer yet.)
Comment: Could you be a little more clear on what it is you want to discuss?
Comment: Is it possible to do the right thing at least now? Better late than never. If Akhil Mathew got the second highest votes in a democratic community election, it stands to reason that he also should be offered the moderator position. This should be done regardless of whether he is going to accept or not. This is a matter of fairness.
Comment: @Ryan: We were promised real moderator elections when the current moderators pro tempore were appointed (forced upon us) by the stackexchange staff.  Combine that with the fact that I have issues with the current moderators (not personal issues, just that I object to the whole idea that you can have non-mathematicians moderating a site about mathematics) and you get this post.
Comment: @978: What exactly was forced by the stackexchange staff? There was a meta thread where you were allowed to nominate (and you seemed to have nominated Isaac) and vote here: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/150/elect-our-provisional-moderators. Did they ignore that thread completely?
Comment: @Moron: Yes, they absoutely did.  I also don't have a problem with Isaac as moderator.  I'm sure you can fill in the rest of the details.  Notice first of all that Akhil was never offered a moderator position, even though he had the second highest score.
Comment: @Isaac: If Akhil was offered it and declined it, Robert Cartaino had every chance to tell me when I asked him about it on the moderators pro temp thread.  In fact, it looked more like he was just ignoring my question...
Comment: @Isaac: Hmm, isn't it quite surprising that I  was totally right all along?  If the SE team had any interest in choosing community-approved moderators, there was nothing stopping them from looking at our election thread.
Comment: @97832123: I didn't have any particular opinion as to whether you were right or wrong.  I was only noting that you were asserting things as fact without having actual knowledge of them.
Comment: @97832123: Why would you expect Robert to tell you if Akhil had been offered the position and declined it?  Generally, such an offer is made directly to the person because it is not public information.
Comment: 978:  Moderate the existence of moderation.  Moderating the moderators is a quick fix.  SE has a good platform for algorithmizing almost everything.  Lack of open source will be a bottleneck in making the necessary improvements.
Comment: @Isaac: Also, I keep telling you that I want to get rid of Kaestur mainly (and I don't really see why we should keep KennyTM on here as a moderator either).
Answer: Since Big-mods are reading this thread, can we get an answer to the OP's question? Or is this secret knowledge which we must wait to hear about? I do not strongly hold either opinion, I just want to know if things will change and when.
Comment: sigh... still nothing...
Answer: There will be an official moderator nomination and election 30 days* after the beta ends. For math.SE, this means around end of Novermber.
Ref: Is there a time when we elect non-temporary moderators on an SE 2.0 site?

The nominations for moderator
  elections will start about 30 days
  after a site graduates from beta.
Moderator nominations will not be
  conducted as a meta thread, as they
  were done with the original sites. We
  are in the process of creating a
  custom software module for holding the
  Moderator nominations. It was the only
  way to conduct a fair and impartial
  nomination process, without the quirks
  of trying to force it into a
  meta-voting thread.
We just passed 30 days on our first
  sites. The development is underway so
  we will start the first round of
  nominations as soon as the module is
  ready.

(The voting software is still not completed so it may be later than that.)
Comment: I think before the next election the anomalies in the last election should be fixed. Akhil Mathew should be offered a moderator position.
Answer: There are two reasons why we should be taking the idea of a "change of guard" seriously.
One is that quality of expertise does matter with SX sites, and we might not be making good use of the talent available.  By my count, six of the top ten MO users have been active here, and half are 2k+ rep. contributors here, meaning they know this site well, are active, and are fairly likely to accept a moderatorship if it is offered.
The other is that I have reservations about the moderators we do have.  Kaestur has not performed badly, but he has been a little bit accident prone, which is really not something we want in a moderator.  Katie has generally been solid, but not all that active.  Isaac has been good, and KennyTM has been very good.  (FWIW, I voted for Katie and KennyTM in the Pro Tempore elections, didn't vote for Isaac, and voted against Kaestur).
Comment: Actually, not that it matters so much, but six can be improved to at least seven.
Answer: Exactly what functions do the moderators perform?
I assume there are automated mechanisms to detect spam and other deletable material that might endanger the operation of the site, and some of this, as well as manually flagged examples that pass the filter, requires human attention.
How much more than that is necessary, given a rating and tagging system and algorithms that can operate on that data?  The "crowdsourcing"/wiki model with editing by users also removes much of the need for unique individual powers.
The lack of (1) discussion (2) crossposting (3) threading capabilities -- i.e., the conceptual regression from USENET to the current Stackexchange model -- leads to much of the migration and other work the moderators currently perform.  Adding more capabilities seems better than creating a dependence on moderation.
Note: sci.math.research withered in part due to over-moderation, a problem that MO has solved, or rather, solved in the context of a high-end user base.   sci.math (unmoderated) would have survived and prospered had it handled the volume growth.  SE is vague about how to address these matters.
Comment: Moderators can also make a question community-wiki, whereas no non-moderator other than the OP could do this.  Now that even the OP cannot make a question community-wiki, this ability seems even more important.
Comment: On MO, the moderators are responsible for addressing problem users.  I also think they can merge tags, which to me is very important.
Comment: we favor moderation over algorithms, but use both. The problem with algorithms is that they can't detect rudeness, hatred, hostility, and overt evil. But human beings can, and will. Expect more human moderation to protect our community from that kind of corrosive poison, not less.
Comment: The methods of "addressing problem users" have been a problem of their own.  Less human-dependent methods would remove some of the conflicts.
Comment: @Jeff: thanks. In any system, the number of moderators is expected to increase with the growth of the user population, but the likelihood that a given discussion thread requires human action is very much a matter of algorithms and site philosophy. The better the software, the smaller the probability that macroscopic human intervention is required (rather than down-rating the material by various metrics that can be used to prevent visibility or promulgation of hostile comments etc. This is done, for example, in search engine "safety" filters: metrics that give *users* additional control.)


How to think of the field $F(\alpha)$

Question: The way I learned it was given a field extension  $F \subset E$, and an element $\alpha \in E$
$$F(\alpha) := \{p(\alpha)/q(\alpha) : p(x), q(x) \in F[x] ,q(\alpha) \not = 0\} $$
Is there an easier way to think about the field $F(\alpha)$
Comment: You can think of it as smallest subfield of $E$ that contains $F$ and $\alpha$
Answer: The definition you've given yields the form of an arbitrary element of the extension. However, it is not the intuitive definition. The intuitive definition is simple: $F(\alpha)$ is the smallest subfield of $E$ containing $F$ and $\alpha$.
In fact, your definition can also be somewhat simplified if $\alpha$ is algebraic over $F$. In this case $F(\alpha)=F[\alpha]$, that is, the smallest ring containing $F$ and $\alpha$, so $F(\alpha)=F[\alpha]=\lbrace p(\alpha)\vert p\in F[x]\rbrace$. Furthermore, algebraic elements have finite degree, so we only need to consider $p$ of degree smaller than the degree of $\alpha$ over $F$.
If $\alpha$ is transcendental over $F$, then $F(\alpha)$ is actually isomorphic to the field of rational functions over $F$, $F(x)$, in which case it is pretty much what you've written, but of course there's no restriction on $q$ in this case.
Comment: also, if $\alpha$ is transcendental over $F$ then $F[\alpha]\cong F[x]$
Answer: Ok so the intuition is that you start with the field $F$ and throw into the pot this new "thing" $\alpha$ to make a field $F(\alpha)$, defined to be the smallest field containing $F$ and $\alpha$.
Let's try an example and discover what the field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ looks like. Ok so this field has to contain all rational numbers. It also contains $\sqrt{2}$ and all rational multiples of this. Thus in fact $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ must contain all numbers of the form $a+b\sqrt{2}$ for rational $a,b$. It must also contain $\sqrt{2}^2, \sqrt{2}^3, ... $ and all rational multiples of these. But these powers of $\sqrt{2}$ are redundant in this counting (they can all be written in terms of numbers of the form $a+b\sqrt{2}$ and so are already accounted for).
Now $\{a+b\sqrt{2}\,|\,a,b\in\mathbb{Q}\}$ is actually a field itself (easily checked), so by minimality it must be equal to $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$.
Now once you try to work out a few more of these you start to realise that the above process worked smoothly purely because of the fact that $\sqrt{2}$ is algebraic over $\mathbb{Q}$.
In general if $\alpha$ is algebraic over your initial field $F$ then this "redundancy" occurs...and that you only have to use the powers of $\alpha$ upto $d-1$, where $d$ is the degree of the "minimal polynomial" of $\alpha$ over $F$ (this being the smallest polynomial with $\alpha$ as a root over $F$).
We had to stop at the first power of $\sqrt{2}$ above because $\sqrt{2}$ satisfies a quadratic polynomial $x^2 - 2$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ and it satisfies no polynomial of smaller degree.
When $\alpha$ is transcendental over $F$ then all powers of $\alpha$ (positive and negative) and all sums, multiples, quotients of these must be thrown into the pot.
Comment: For teaching purposes, I think you should also add the *inverse* to your second paragraph, i.e. "[..] contain $\sqrt{2}^2, \sqrt{2}^3, \ldots, \sqrt{2}^{-1}$ and all rational multiples [..]." Then it should be apparent to OP, that inverse $\alpha^{-1}$ is expressible in terms of lower powers of $\alpha = \sqrt{2},$ since $\alpha$ is algebraic over $\mathbb Q,$ namely $\alpha^{-1} = \frac{1}{2} \alpha.$
Comment: Yes this would probably have been better, although when checking that the required set is a field we do check this fact.
Answer: For an extension $E/F$ and $\alpha\in E$, if $\alpha$ is algebraic over $F$, then the extension $F(\alpha)\subseteq E$ can also be described in a way which is intrinsic to $F$ (i.e. which involves no mention of $E$).
To say that $\alpha$ is algebraic means there exists a non-zero (hence non-constant) polynomial $f\in F[X]$ with $f(\alpha)=0$. There is a unique $F$-algebra map $\varphi:F[X]\rightarrow E$ satisfying $X\mapsto(\alpha)$. The kernel is non-zero (because $f$ is in it) and proper (since this is a map of non-zero rings), so is of the form $(g)$ for a unique monic $g$, say of degree $d\geq 1$. One can characterize $g$ as the monic polynomial of minimal degree having $\alpha$ as a root. The homomorphism $\varphi$ gives rise to an isomorphism $F[X]/(g)\cong\mathrm{im}\varphi$. The image of $\varphi$ is $F[\alpha]\subseteq E$, the $F$-subalgebra of $E$ generated by $\alpha$, which can concretely be described as the set of polynomials in $\alpha$ with coefficients in $F$. This is a domain, being a subring of a field. One can also show that the elements $1+(g), X+(g),\ldots,X^{d-1}+(g)$ form a basis for $F[X]/(g)\cong F[\alpha]$ as an $F$-vector space. In particular, $F[\alpha]$ is of dimension $d$ as an $F$-vector space. From this it follows that $F[\alpha]$ is a field. Indeed, consider any non-zero element $\beta$ of $F[\alpha]$ and the $F$-endomorphism $x\mapsto\beta x:F[\alpha]\rightarrow F[\alpha]$. This is injective, hence surjective, since source and target have the same finite dimension, so there is $x$ with $x\beta=1$, and $\beta$ is a unit. Since, by definition, $F(\alpha)$ is the smallest subfield of $E$ containing $F$ and $\alpha$, and $F[\alpha]$ is such a field, we must have $F[\alpha]=F(\alpha)$.
In summary, we have constructed an isomorphism (of $F$-algebras) $F[X]/(g)\cong F(\alpha)$ (along the way we showed that $F(\alpha)$ consists of all polynomials in $\alpha$ with coefficients in $F$). Since $F[X]/(g)$ is a field, $(g)$ must be a maximal ideal, and $g$ is irreducible. It follows that $g$ is the unique monic irreducible polynomial in $F[X]$ having $\alpha$ as a root. In this way you get a description of $F(\alpha)$ as $F[X]/(g)$ which doesn't directly involve $E$.
Conversely, if $g\in F[X]$ is a monic irreducible polynomial, then $(g)$ is maximal, so $E:=F[X]/(g)$ is a field containing $F$, and if $\alpha:=X+(g)$, then $\alpha$ is a root of $g$ in $E$, and $E=F(\alpha)$.
Note that this is only valid for $\alpha$ algebraic over $F$. As pointed out in one of the other answers, if $\alpha$ is transcendental over $F$, then the map $\varphi:F[X]\rightarrow E$ given by $X\mapsto\alpha$ is injective (this is exactly what it means for $\alpha$ to be transcendental over $F$), so one has $F[X]\cong F[\alpha]$ as $F$-algebras. This isomorphism of domains then extends uniquely to an $F$-algebra isomorphism of fraction fields $F(X)\cong F(\alpha)$.

How to think of the field $F(\alpha)$


Who is the dead man in the lighthouse?

Question: About 4 minutes into the game, you see a dead man in the lighthouse with a sign hanging around his neck saying "Don't disappoint us".
Who is he?
Comment: Honestly, any answer here is going to be speculation.
Comment: I think he's just the lighthouse supervisor. All the messages are meant for Booker.
Comment: I assumed he was the last guy who they sent after Elizabeth and failed
Answer: Ken Levine, the creative director of Bioshock Infinite, stated in an interview (5:47) that it's the lighthouse keeper.

(Asked while walking up to the dead man in the lighthouse)
Q. How much went into making sure that this wasn't just an empty lighthouse that you're walking up?  How much attention went into the writing on the wall (which isn't necessarily legible, but is there as a nice detail)?
A. That was all actually added very very very late, because we didn't really realize how important it was to sell Booker's story in the lighthouse, rather than the story of just going to Columbia.  And so this lighthouse keeper, the writing on the wall, the mess, all that got added in the last few weeks (before I came out to show it to you guys), because we realized that story wasn't resonating very well.  And little details like, you know, he's got a pillowcase over his head; random killers don't put pillowcases over peoples' heads and shoot them, so this is clearly some kind of professional work.
And so all these details just kept getting added along the way, mostly from having people play it and seeing:  were they getting our intent?  Were they getting what we were trying to do?

So, apparently the dead body (which even the creative director considers to be just the lighthouse keeper) was just added at the last minute to emphasize the seriousness of Booker's situation, and wasn't meant as an important plot-point.
(Though, they could always figure out a way to work him into the plot in a future DLC :) )
Answer: I think I got the answer, and if you think about it, it's quite straightforward. It isn't Booker, or any metaphysical representation of his psyche.
The lighthouse serves as an entrance to Columbia, and as we see at the beginning of the game, used by pilgrims and newcomers that have been accepted into the city. Such a place would have a keeper, a guardian. There are religious motifs all over the place, because as any good Columbian, he'd be a believer. There are charts in the lighthouse that show where the city is going to be depending on the time of the year, and the pattern it follows.
And to activate the chair that ejects you into the city, you need a password, the bell combination, that only said lighthouse guardian would know. Now, in the Lutece labs, you find a picture of the lighthouse with a red circle marked around it and the words "ONLY ONE OBSTACLE" next to it. Their plan was to send Booker through the lighthouse, and the only obstacle was the man guarding it himself.
So that's it. The Lutece have shown to be quite cold in their behavior and not care much about other people's lives when they get between them and their experiments. Maybe they didn't do the deed themselves, they might've just hired another nameless thug to do the dirty job.
But basically: It's nobody but the Lighthouse keeper, who's been tortured and murdered in order to get the means for Booker to get into the city. They might've left the "Don't dissapoint us" message to add color or feed him the idea that he's working for some shady criminal organization.
Comment: Could the obstacle simply be: persuading or achieving getting Booker to go along with the whole plan? Obviously they achieve this because his memories get all blurry and he persuades himself that he has to "get the girl" but maybe they didn't know it would be that easy.
Comment: Related:  http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/113996/what-is-the-only-one-obstacle
Answer:
MASSIVE SPOILERS - DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T COMPLETED THE GAME YET

Well, it can't be the last guy sent after Elizabeth, cause that would be Booker himself (albeit a version of him from a different reality) - plus, that guy was obviously killed where he sat, so it's safe to say it was the lighthouse supervisor.
More interesting than that is the question who killed him and planted all the "motivationals" like "Don't disappoint us". Couldn't have been the Lutece's (at least not the killing) because they were afraid that interfering directly would mess up reality as a whole - otherwise, they would have freed Elizabeth and/or killed Comstock themselves.
So, maybe Booker halucinated all of that to support his new, fictional memories? After all: "The mind of the subject will desperately struggle to create memories where none exist."
– Rosalind Lutece
Comment: I wrote that comment before beating the game, I now definitely don't think it's the last guy they sent for Elizabeth :P
Answer:
SPOILERS AHEAD!

It can't be Booker, on the basis that I crouched down and looked at his right hand, there's no AD on it, if it was Booker intended by the developers, they would have put it there so that only people playing through the second time would understand the importance of hiding something subtle yet easily missed by a first time player, such as the AD mark.
Answer: First off, Ken Levine has stated it was a last minute addition and that he was just a "lighthouse keeper" in this comment/interview.
Second, even though the game doesn't explicitly state it, it's not Booker.
Each Booker the Luteces took to Columbia died. The Columbia is a different world/timeline each time by the way, not a bunch of Bookers going to the SAME Columbia every time, that wouldn't make sense! This means that if Booker dies, his body wouldn't be in the next "Booker-takes-on-Columbia" timeline. The Luteces could move the body but you can tell by looking at the body and the tools around it, that person was killed/tortured on the spot for a reason.
Theories of anyone else besides the Luteces putting Booker's or anyone elses body there are impossible since no one would know enough to do it in that specific timeline, except for people who know what's happening already, which would be the Luteces. There is no way the Vox could know anything in that timeline to warrant putting a warning in the lighthouse.
Comstock of course knows Booker is coming because he knows he wants to try and get his daughter back (but he wouldn't put a dead body there, he would put a guard there, hence the keeper). So in every timeline, Comstock is ready for Booker and anticipates it. This is why he created the entire "false prophet" campaign and knows about the "AD" on Booker's hand (he uses tears to see other times and that's how he saw the "AD"). This is why he sends the note that's in the lighthouse that says to "stop him" because Booker is coming. This would mean that there is a guard/caretaker at the lighthouse for whom the note was intended, which is what the dead man is, a guard/keeper.
You would think Comstock would put more soldiers there to stop him, but the Luteces probably could have dealt with anything he put in their way eventually, just not personally.
Answer: I believe it's jack ryan... or some kind of version of him, maybe a natural version of him, but its that sweater... that same material (wool or cotton or whatever). Its got to be him!  i agree that hes a guard, but i also believe him to be Jack. Im unable to see the backs of his wrists when i play, they are conveniantly tied together in a way that covers the exact spots, which is more reason to believe it...
Answer: its just some guy watching the entrance. some townies even say columbia isnt open to the public anymore. its a guard, who killed him, not sitting down i may add he looks placed there. and -C must be comstock. the place looked Comstocked out so it wasnt an illusion either, could be the vox for smuggling reasons but thats too coincidental too perfect timing and it wouldev been explained through some easter egg, recorder, something. so the fact that its not explained probably just means poor job on creation part just for story like you guys said before that kev guy said.
what about the message you get for that kid, he says dewitts name!, it cant be the luteces doing all this, they wouldev just gave him that note on the boat unless they need to see how things play out first i guess, i just feel that the luteces never know when they can help when they do they are there in person. slate acts normal like dewitt is his friend like he knows about tears etc. but fights him anyway. i feel that this is one of the best games ever, but a lot just doesnt make sense like if it was left for infinite speculation, a grand debate never to end. iev had enough!, i will just pretend whatever i want and that will be my truth... "i know my truth..." -AD
p.s. until the boys and girls of bioshock say something different......
this game's getting more confusing all time....
Answer: It's comstock. When Booker is waiting to cross the bridge and that float goes past it shows Comstock with the very same outfit on.
Answer: Booker, after being killed by the Vox.
My guess is that this lighthouse acts as foreshadowing of the larger game. Booker rejects the cleansing, sees the aspects of Columbia, but sees a fight destroy things, with a blood trail leading to the body. Bookers only choice is to ascend.
The reason I feel it's booker is because of the sign. It says "don't disappoint us". Now, this could be meant for anyone, but it is oddly specific to you. If meant for a common Columbian, this would have no meaning. But Booker helps the Vox in one world, allowing them to take over, while he fails them in another.
It also helps to watch Daisy's (the Vox leader) reaction to you being alive mod-game. In her world you died for the Vox. She saw it "with her own eyes" and she seems pretty angry you're there. Why?
She killed you. For power, or because she knew about the possibility of tears, but she doesn't want you to go messing up the big revolution. And you do completely help with her murder too, so maybe she is trying to prevent her own death.
So, the dead person is a threat. It represents booker's martyrdom in the larger story, but knowing multiple worlds, could be the real you after being tortured for failing the Vox.
Comment: There are a lot of reasons I disagree with this answer, but the biggest is that the Vox rise to power is in a different reality than the one you start the game in.
Comment: I can't see it being Booker either, especially because of what Sterno said - The timeline you start in is not the one where Booker was with the Vox.

Who is the dead man in the lighthouse?


Old camera flashes

Question: Hi I currently need the sound of some old camera flashes like the ones that used bulbs and have a very unique sound. Struggling to recreate or find anything relevant in FX libraries so any help or tips would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Adam
Comment: I'd just love to have someone go find or buy the real hardware and record it; I'm dying to know if the sound we hear in films is really what those units sound like, or if it's a cliche or composite like gunfire.
Answer: You could try making your own flash powder and cover it with a wine glass (or other close-to-spheric piece of thin glass) to mimic the bulb's attenuation of the ignition...
Answer: Haven't tried this myself, but this should work; quick and low-budget suggestion that should at least work as a starting-point:
For powder bursts, flap a thin bed-sheet once, vigorously (this may need to be time-reduced or have the pitch adjusted). For a bulb flash/click; snip some scissors once for the higher 'click', and mix it with crushing a peanut shell with your hand. Again, some adjustment would probably be required.
Good luck!
Answer: A subtle crackle at the end of the "flash" might add to the old-school vibe. There are lots of things that crackle (candy wrappers, record players, rice krispies, etc) but I noticed the other day that hookah quick-light coals make for a great crackling sound. Pitch it down, EQ it, stretch it, whatever.
Also check the vinyl distortion plugin in Ableton for some more crackle/pop sounds.
Good luck!
Answer: I've been thinking about this lately too.  What I've come up with is mostly conceptual, haven't really tried to cobble this together yet.  But what I've been thinking is that the sound could be divided into distinct parts, such as a high pitched rising whine or tone, a click, then a burst/pop sound and perhaps another tonal sound that kind of drops after the burst/pop/click.  Generate the sounds and then add them together in a DAW and you might have something close to the sound.
Answer: is there a high pitched whine on old cameras? the new ones have this as they charge the capacitor which stores the energy for the flash. if you're going to be igniting powder or burning oxygen, that won't require the same amount of energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(photography)#Flashbulbs
Answer: Using a EQ and separating the channels with different settings and using some automation sometimes makes a phasey effect

Old camera flashes