How can I get my Starbucks coffee to taste like the Starbucks store?

Question: I use Starbucks coffee they sell in bags. I have used both whole beans and ground. I've bought bags from the grocery, bags from the actual Starbucks store. I've tried many different brewers. But it never tastes quite the same. Does anyone know how to emulate their brewing technique?
Comment: Could you describe the difference between your efforts and Starbucks'? To me the dominant flavor in most (but not all) Starbucks brewed coffee is "burnt".
Comment: What machine are you using ? filter ? espresso machine ? maybe the water is different, maybe the coffee age is different ? or the cardboard cup is different.
Comment: @Max I've used quite a few different machines. I've done paper filters micro mesh filters. Cups are ceramic or Styrofoam. My water is NYC water which is also filtered.
Comment: @wilee I have two or three flavors that I like. The rest don't impress me. But I definitely wasn't expecting all this Starbucks hate:) It's hard to describe. Its kinda muddy and suppressed flavors verse theirs in the store which is lively and flavorful. I'm not even focusing on the beans so much. It just seems they have some magic way of making their beans (like them or not) come alive.
Comment: I come from sydney, here there's a bit of a coffee culture.  I nearly threw up when I tried a starbucks coffee.  When they opened a bunch of stores here, all but two went out of business immediately.  That someone would want to emulate that taste is blowing my mind.
Comment: what are you putting in it? Are you drinking it black, or comparing your milk-and-sugar to their cream-and-sugar?
Comment: @Kate Gregory black
Answer: I cannot tell you how they do it at that specific location, how your method differs, or what you're doing wrong. I don't really even know exactly how you're brewing your coffee. However, I can tell you how to brew a consistent cup using the best possible practices.
Here's a list of things to consider

Grind your coffee immediately(not the night before) before brewing

Use a Burr Grinder, not a blade grinder. This will ensure that the grounds are of a consistent size, and provides even extraction. There is no reputable coffee shop that uses a blade grinder, and with good reason. Get a Burr grinder. If you don't want to drop the cash you can get a hand mill for about ~$20-30.

Weight your beans, do not measure them by Volume.

Beans from different regions and varieties vary in density, and size. This can really throw off volume measurements.

Use filtered water.

Most coffee shops will have a filtration system for the entire store to prevent mineral build up in their coffee and espresso machines, as well as providing a better cup of coffee.

Learn how coffee hits your palate, and learn how to adjust your brewing variables(grind size, water/coffee ratio, brew time, temperature).
Ditch the auto-drip. Learn how to do a manual pourover or press pot. You'll have much more control over your brewing variables, and be able to pin point the extraction method that fits your palate best.

I deeply urge you to try coffee that isn't Starbucks. Starbucks might be a notch above grocery store coffee, but isn't at all interesting(to put it lightly). Try Stumptown, Blue Bottle, Intellegensia, Ruby's Colorful Coffees. You'll likely forget about Starbucks soon after trying coffee's from any of the roasters I listed.
Like I said. Starbucks isn't really interesting coffee. Its pretty bland, brewed with a standard auto-drip. If it tastes different it could be for many reasons, such as sitting in a thermos for a long period of time, or the grounds may sit too long after being ground. Typically larger auto-drip machines use a coarser grind because the hopper is larger. This can affect taste. There's too many variables to nail down how to brew exactly like that starbucks store.
In the mean time, I urge you to try more interesting bean varieties. You're really missing out.
For the record, Starbucks main competition... McDonalds. Give it a read Is Starbucks Coffee Actually That Good?
Comment: In my opinion, Starbucks coffee is worse than uninteresting: it's outright *burnt*. But I'm not exactly a coffee expert.
Comment: Really it comes down to preference, however you're partially right. Starbucks roasts to standard roast levels, likes full-city, half-city, french, and italian roasts. While more and more roasters are adopting _profile roasting_. Profile roasting roasts a bean to bring out its distinct flavors. These flavors vary depending on altitude, climate, region, and the actual bean variety(typica, java, bourbon, etc). Over roasting typically destroys the bright, fruity, wine like tastes in coffee. However its hard to profile roast large batches, so typically prices for these beans are more.
Comment: Great answer, and special kudos for pointing out Starbucks isn't very interesting coffee!
Comment: As you can imagine there are limitless distinct tastes in coffee that you simply cannot expose through standard roasting.
Comment: To read more about coffee varieties [see here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coffee_varieties)
Comment: To me, the most important thing is freshness of the roasted coffee. Most coffee has a "best used by" date, which is meaningless. Fresh roasted coffee starts to decline in flavor after about 15 days. I never buy roasted coffee unless I see the roasting date on the package. My cutoff is two weeks from the roasting date.
Comment: Yeah that's what stumptown recommends. I typically drink what I buy that week. One way to assure I always have fresh beans is going through a subscription with Blue Bottle. This way I get fresh beans shipped bi-weekly. On the off week I typically buy Ruby Colorful Coffee.
Comment: I have a problem with this answer. It might be all good practice, but it is an answer to a different question. If the OP asks how to make coffee like Starbucks, saying "Starbucks is not good coffee, try this instead" is not answering the question.
Comment: That's an addition to the answer, as you can see I specified exactly why the answer simply cannot be answered because its too broad. So I provided the best practices for brewing coffee(regardless of brand). Then I made further suggestions, which as far as I'm concerned, are encouraged.
Comment: I tried the extreme fresh grinding and carefully measuring. A definite improvement. Thank you. Next, coffee been experimentation. Which one of those you recommended should I try first? And any flavor in particular? I usually like dark roasts.
Answer: I want to emphasize that clean filtered water is the most important step to making great tasting coffee.
Starbucks uses commercial Everpure dual filter systems to run their machines and their filtered faucets. An Everpure setup will run you around $350 and $100 a year for filter replacements. If that isn't something you would want to spend that much on, even one of those $35 Pur faucet attachments will help to bring a better and cleaner taste to the water in your coffee.
Besides the water, consistency of heat (and pressure for espresso) is the second most important aspect of a good extraction.
For drip, getting a decanter setup like this and an electric kettle with a temperature setting can improve the heat consistency. For optimal results, set the kettle to 205F.
For espresso, there are many more variables in place in order to create good pressure. The grind, the tamp, the method of pressure (steam or pump). If one of these things is bad then the whole cup can be ruined. There are many articles on the web about these three specific topics.
With any espresso machine I always let it preheat for a bit longer than recommended and then run hot water through the machine for at least 30secs to ensure that the machine doesn't cool down the water during extraction.
Also, storing the beans in an air-tight container and grinding them right before using them. This ensures that the beans are fresh and still have CO2 lingering within the grinds.
If you ever get your hands on a copy of 'Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking', there is an entire chapter on brewing the perfect cup of coffee.
Answer: We got hooked on SB coffee. We could taste the difference compared to DD or our home made coffee. I bought SB ground coffee and tried it in our french press. It did not taste the same. Finally, after studying and trying different ideas, it all came down to the WATER. Our tap water was causing the off note taste. We now use filtered water and the taste has improved 100%.
Comment: So what type of filter do you use? I filter my NYC water with a 40 micron (iirc) filter, so I'm wondering how much better I can filter it?
Answer: I agree with a lot of the previous answers, especially "try something else", but if you want to keep it Starbucks, I'll note a few things. (On the off chance it's something to do with Seattle, Caffe Vita has opened a shop in NYC.  Mmmm, Theo blend.)
First, I would buy direct from SB rather than from grocery stores. That stuff is more likely to sit around on the shelf for weeks/months. (Someone please comment if they know for sure the same is true of in-house SB bags.)
Second, buy whole beans and grind. Even sealed, grounds will go "stale" faster than beans. A blade grinder is fine if you're no fanatic. If I had just a blade grinder I'd probably use a French press. If you some day spend more than basic SB price on beans, I'd splurge on a burr grinder, otherwise there's less point in buying pricey beans. As another mentioned, hand grinders work pretty well if you don't grind fine (or if you do and have some patience).
Finally, I'll second the French press idea. It's easy to use, pretty forgiving, and produces a very nice rich taste and texture. It's my go-to and favorite coffee maker, especially when I want volume.
P.S. After reading your answer to my comment, and a bit more of the answers which I should have read before, I have one suggestion for you, and I hope you'd find it entertaining given that you had the patience and/or dedication to try a number of different methods. Get scientific about it and blog your experience. I think a few people might be interested to read about one person's quest to brew Starbucks coffee just like they make it in-house. Take it all into account: brewing method, temperature of water (thermometers are cheap), bean grind (hand grinders are inexpensive), brew time, more.
Answer: Agree that filtered water can make a noticeable difference, even if you just buy the grocery store stuff for $1 per gallon.
Grinding--burr grinders are nice, but really not necessary if your normal grind is medium to course. I use bursts and get reasonably good uniformity.  For espresso or turkish, yes.
I'll disagree about eschewing Starbucks. Not because it's good coffee because it really isn't, but if you use it as a cold brew concentrate it's amazing how some of their coffees open up nicely. I usually buy my beans from our local Temple Coffee in Sacramento, or from Happyrock in Gladstone OR. But, for economy's sake, a $6.50 bag of Starbucks Verona prepared by cold brewing then mixed with 2:1 hot water has a delightful taste with some very obvious aromatics and chocolate that are totally lost when hot brewed.
If you do hot brew, then I believe a pour over with a #2 filter, following proper pour over procedures, yields the best cup. I use Japanese filters; they may make a difference.
As others have said, brewing a good cup does take some study, a little equipment, and a lot of experimenting.
Answer: Starbucks Coffee vs Good Coffee
I deeply suspect that what you are describing is simply slightly-less-stale beans/grounds than the kinds you have at home.

Buy a plunger (in america they are sometimes called a french press).

Find the best FRESH ROASTED BEANS or FRESH VACUUM PACKED GROUNDS you can reasonably buy (distancewise or moneywise).  Look for the ones that have won huge piles of awards.  That's generally a good place to look.  Most of these will be stale, or poorly roasted.  The ones with big piles of awards, especially small or indie roasters, will not.  Non stale coffee taste is likely what you are after.

Plungers are extremely simple - grind or pour grounds into the thing, press plunger down after a minute to steep, pour out resulting coffee - very unlikely to introduce machine bias into your coffee experience.
Use the plunger to test the grounds/beans.  Find one you like.  Then use that in machines or whatever you like, knowing that if it comes out wrong, it's the machines' fault.


How to enter DFU mode on my flight controller?

Question: How can I enter DFU mode on flight controllers, in particular on my CL Racing F4S flight controller?
Ref.: https://cl-racing.myshopify.com/products/clracing-f4s
Answer: There are three ways you should know to enter DFU mode.
The first, as mentioned before, is to push down the bootloader button and power on your board.
The second method is to be used on boards that don't have a bootloader button (which is increasingly rare). You will need to bridge two bootloader pads on your flight controller to enter DFU mode. Check the specific diagram for your flight controller to find out exactly what pads you need to bridge.
The last method is to enter the CLI and type either 'DFU' or 'BL', which will then put the FC into DFU mode. Obviously this method won't work if you're entering DFU mode because you ant connect to your computer.
Comment: There is another way that has worked for me in the past, when unable to enter DFU mode.  Download the ImpulseRC Driver Fixer app.  Disconnect USB from the drone, shut down Betaflight (assuming Betaflight is being used, but it should work for other flight controller firmware).  Reconnect all and run the ImpulseRC Driver Fixer app.

https://impulserc.blob.core.windows.net/utilities/ImpulseRC_Driver_Fixer.exe
Comment: @Schome1 good to know, thanks
Comment: There's an important caveat to the last method you mention that might be good to note. If you're using a serial-based radio receiver (s.bus, spektrum satellite, etc) and it is connected to certain UARTs on the flight controller, it can disrupt DFU. Basically DFU will initialize on the UART where it gets chatter from the RX rather than the VCP needed by the firmware flashing utility. The solution is to makes sure the RX is not powered on, or not connected. Then DFU should initialize as expected.
Answer: You can enter DFU mode by pressing the boot button and powering the board on.
Entering DFU mode can be necessary when you want to flash/update the board's firmware. Especially, when you get "Failed to open serial port" in the Betaflight configurator.


When approving an edit, how to send a message to the editor?

Question: I recently came across an edit that, while mostly appropriate, had to be slightly modified. It would be great to be able to send a note to the original editor indicating why an edit might have been rejected or edited, or provide some general feedback. Is this possible?
Answer: You can ping any editor of the post using @username in the comments. You'll have to write username by hand, it won't auto-complete. This will notify that user in their global inbox.
From Shog9's post:

Leave a comment for the editor. Yes, you can ping editors by typing
@ your edit was harmful due to  or some such in a
comment on the post that was edited. Not a lot of folks realize this,
and the end result is that folks get all frustrated by edits instead
of just educating the editors.

Related post:

How do comment @replies work?
Comment: @remus Inviting them to a chat room is also an option. You can create a room for them and yourself, or invite them to a more general room like the [Tavern on the Meta](http://chat.meta.stackexchange.com/rooms/89/tavern-on-the-meta) where all users are present and the discussion is more friendly and casual, rather than focused on the user.
Comment: Yeah, I thought about doing that, but it wasn't the sort of thing that I felt belonged in the comments of a post. Especially since that author's name didn't appear as editor any longer, it would have been a bit out of place.


Teradata performance statistics

Question: I need some statistics regarding the performance of Teradata, something like with a given hardware, given nodes and given AMPs - a table which has thousands of rows can be read in 't' secs.
I need this information to analyze the feasibility of teradata.
Comment: You certainly meant at least hundreds millions of rows? What's the point if you're dealing with smallish data sets?
Answer: There are a multitude of factors that go into determining which Teradata platform and the configuration of the platform that will suite your needs. Teradata has spent untold amounts of money on intellectual property and decades of experience working with potential customers to help them properly size a configuration that not only meets the immediate needs of a customer but provides them capacity for which the environment can adequately grow and evolve.
I would strongly suggest you reach out to Teradata directly and engage them in a pre-sales capacity if your company is considering their technology to meet the needs of your data warehouse environment.
For a sandbox environment, you could may be able to get away with using the one terabyte version of Teradata Express on an adequately sized server or consider using Amazon EC2 to stand up a instance of Teradata to complete a proof of concept. It should be noted that either of these options should not be used to gauge the performance of a production environment for service level agreements but whether or not the technology will accomplish what you are trying to do.
Answer: yeah Rob!! you are right, there are number of factors that will determine the performance of any query. I have found one whitepaper on teradata that has 5 case studies where scalability is defined on different parameters.
http://www.teradata.com/white-papers/The-Teradata-Database-Scalability-Story-eb3031/
This white paper has somehow answered most of my questions.
Comment: Great overview of Teradata.

Teradata performance statistics


Is it mathematically possible for a black hole to be connected to a white hole or a worm hole?

Question: I know that there's no evidence at this point for "white holes" however would it even be mathematically possible for a black hole to be connected to a white hole (total opposite so everything would be expelled, after some really extreme physical conditions)? Maybe with a wormhole connecting them? If this was even possible (if the black hole or connection could actually be created and be stable enough), would that matter be expelled into a different universe, etc? Maybe even a different region of spacetime? Just curious, as it would be a cool idea.
Answer: Dear Kahtrijn, white holes are microscopically the same objects as black holes, and it's guaranteed - by the second law of thermodynamics - that all macroscopic processes occur in the way as they do in black holes and not white holes (the latter are time-reversed of the former).
However, if you don't care about the second law of thermodynamics that prevents black hole size from shrinking by emitting large objects (which objects?), then you may write down any configuration in general relativity you want. In particular, it's easy to connect white holes to black holes. After all, an "eternal black hole" is a solution that is doing nothing else.
The connection between a white hole and a black hole goes in a different direction than you seem to expect, however. It's a connection between the past and the future. It's because the (neutral) white hole singularity is a spacelike singularity in the past, and the (neutral) black hole singularity is a spacelike singularity in the future. To connect those singularities, you need timelike (rather than spacelike) trajectories.
One doesn't need any wormhole to write down an eternal black hole. It may sound cool to combine so many different holes but it is totally unnecessary: the wormholes are independent objects from the black holes and white holes.
Answer: Katrijnn,
Lubos Motl's answer is correct.  However, the so-called maximally extended Schwarzschild solution to the equations that govern gravity describe what may also be considered an untraversable wormhole.   It connects two "universes" (i.e. asymptotically flat regions).  But the connection does not last long enough for a signal to pass through it.
For a suitable observer this solution essentially describes an object that is a white hole in the past, a short-lived untraversable wormhole in the present, and a black hole in the future.
[Note that astrophysical black holes (as opposed to the theoretically permissible black hole solution considered above) result from stellar collapse and do not involve wormholes or white holes.]
Comment: This is incorrect, but controversially so so no downvote--- the problem is _only_ the Schwartschild is untraversable--- Kerr is traversable naively and nobody has persuaded me (or anyone else--- it's open) that the Cauchy horizon is a hard-wall.


How close can a Nikon 1 J1 with 30-110mm lens "zoom in" to a shot?

Question: I am trying to decide which camera to buy.  Have looked into both the Nikon Coolpix P100 and 1 J1, and feel that the 1J1 is more adaptable, and has many features that I'd like to enjoy.  But, I'm concerned about how "close" I can zoom into a shot.  For example, will the 30-110mm lens allow me to take a close-up of my son playing center field, if I'm sitting on the third base line?
Answer: The easiest way to explain this is with examples. Lucky for you, many of these exist online already. The trick though, is that most of the online examples will show you the 35mm equivalent focal lengths. Instead of showing a 30-110mm lens on the Nikon 1 J1, they usually show lenses on a full frame 35mm size sensor camera, such as a Nikon D800. So you will need to do a bit of math to use these same online examples if you are considering the Nikon 1 J1. The math comes into play for the crop factor. The crop factor is the digital sensor's size compared to a full frame 35mm sensor size.  The Nikon 1 J1 has a crop factor of 2.7(read on for more).
Here is an example. 30mm on the Nikon 1 J1, is similar in field of view as a 81mm lens on a 35mm or full frame format camera. I got to this by taking 30mm x 2.7. So overall the 30-110mm is equivalent to the field of view of a 80-297mm lens on a full frame camera.
With that said, now you can take the information you now know, to see what type of zoom or view you will have on the standard focal length examples below:

Canon Focal Length Comparison
Nikkor Lens Simulator(Use FX format)
Tamron Focal Length Comparison Tool

Remember, this lens will have the same view as an 81-297mm lens would in the example links above!
Also, see these other great questions for more information on this topic:

What is crop factor and how does it relate to focal length?
What is "angle of view" in photography?
Is crop-factor a bad thing?
Does my crop sensor camera actually turn my lenses into a longer focal length?

Important to note as well, the Nikon Coolpix P100 typically already has it's specs stated in 35mm format equivalent form. It is a 26-678mm lens in 35mm equiv. So the P100 has a much much larger range then the 30-110mm lens you were looking at.
Overall, a 110mm lens on the Nikon 1 J1 is a great deal of zoom. That should easily suffice for personal use at a baseball field. The limiting factor will likely be light, as low light sports photography is very demanding of equipment in multiple ways. It isn't by any means a bad idea to get this lens for your intended purposes, but just be aware that a full size DSLR with a professional lens will be able to achieve better in this situation.
Answer: You will be able to zoom in almost twice as close with the P100 than the 1 J1 with the 30-110mm lens. If your son plays most of his games in bright daylight you will probably be happier paying around $300 for the P100 if that is the primary use for the camera. On the other hand, if your son plays a lot of night games the 1 J1 may perform better enough in the low light to allow you to crop the resulting image and still wind up with a higher quality photo. The 30-110mm lens along with the 1 J1 and the included 10-30mm kit lens will leave you more room to grow as a photographer and be much more adaptable to other types of photography. Of course the cost is significantly higher at around $500.
The Coolpix P100 has an zoom range that yields an equivalent field of view (FoV) of 28-560mm on a 35mm camera.
On the Nikon 1 J1 the 30-110 will yield a FoV equivalent to 81-297mm on a 35mm camera. This places the 30-110 squarely within the range of popular consumer grade telephoto zoom lenses.
On the surface it would appear that the P100 wins hands down, right? Not so fast, my friend!
Nikon claims the J 1J has the world's fastest auto focus (AF) system. This would lead one to assume that means it is faster than the Nikon P100. If, by the time the camera can focus and fire the shutter, the moment has already passed the extra zoom of the P100 isn't worth as much. Focus speed on both cameras will be affected by the brightness of the scene. In lower light both will take longer to focus than in bright sunlight.
The P100 has a 1/2.3" sensor that is sized at just under 1/4 the total area of the 1 J1's 1" sensor. Since they are both  about 10MP, this means the pixel wells on the 1 J1
are about twice the width (and 4x the area) of the pixel wells on the P100. This allows the 1 J1 to perform much better in low light than the P100. The 1 J1 should also generate less image noise than the 1 J1 in similar shooting situations.
As with any lens like the one on the P100 that has a zoom ratio of 20x, there are a lot of design compromises that have to be made that will affect image quality and maximum aperture. This is much less the case for the 3.7x zoom ration of the 30-110mm lens.
Aperture is important because it affects how much light is allowed into the camera and that affects the minimum shutter speed, especially in low light such as a sports field in late afternoon or at night. In this regard there isn't a lot of difference between the two options in your question. The part of the P100's focal length range that is equivalent to the 30-110mm lens on the 1 J1 is around 14mm-51mm. Although the P100 is at f/2.8 at 4.6mm (equivalent to 10mm on the 1 J1), by 14mm it is probably around the same as the f/3.8 of the 30-110 at 30mm. On the long end, which is what you would be most concerned with at your son's baseball game, the P100 is a little faster than the 30-110 at maximum focal length (f/5.0 vs. f/5.6).
All of these factors will affect the way the images you take at a baseball game with either choice will appear. You will definitely have more reach with the P100 than the 1 J1 + 30-110mm lens. But you might also have a noisier, more distorted image that was not taken until after the moment you wanted to capture had passed.
Comment: I think it was. Look the question again. He recognizes that the 1 J1 is "...more adaptable, and has many features that I'd like to enjoy..." but he is concerned if the 110mm on the 1J1 has enough reach for his son's baseball games. I interpret the question to be saying something like "In light of these other factors, how much of a difference in "zoom" will I have between these two choices?" My opening sentence addresses that very clearly. I then go on to discuss other factors that could affect his overall satisfaction with the pictures he would take at a game.
Comment: The AF of the V1 (and, according to the specs, the J1 is the same in this regard) *is* quite outstanding. For shooting sports I'm sure it's a great advantage over the more typical AF performance of the P100.
Comment: Great comparison if the two cameras but I don't think that was the primary purpose of the question.
Comment: Or "she" and "her" as the case may be.


What toys tend to be a child's favorite, and why?

Question: I heard an answer to this question awhile back, and believe it's true - though guessing it's not based on any real research. The answer being that any toy that forms a bridge between them and their parents is the toy they like best. Any thoughts?
Comment: I don't know that I agree with the "bridge to the parents" answer, although I could see it being true in some cases. I really like this question, though.  I would love to see some answers that are well-referenced/researched, and I plan on adding a bounty once this question is eligible (in 2 days).
Comment: I found [this article](http://betterkidcare.psu.edu/TIPS/Tips412.pdf) that has some really useful categories in it.
Comment: I think you' have to define "favorite toy" a little more. **Any new toy** is a favorite toy (at least for some time) :-) Do you mean long-time favorite toys?
Answer: Well, from my experience every new toy is the favorite toy.
The interesting question is: how long?
Much things and toys are interesting only for a short time and others will be used again and again. The more flexible they are (as Sarato describes in her answer What toys tend to be a child's favorite, and why? ), the longer they'll last - e. g. Duplo, Lego, building bricks or a wooden railway which can be used every time in a different way.
From my experience (with a nearly 4 year old boy), I'd say, the following features make a toy especially interesting for a (our) child:

if anything moves (by hand or automatically), e. g. a digger with a functional shovel, all kinds of vehicles, a fire engine with a ladder which can be turned or tilted, ...
if they can make sound (electronic toys or musical instrument)
if it has a motor (electrical, radio controlled, or whatever) and can move by itself
if it imitates real objects that only adults are allowed to use (tools, cars, computers, ...)
if it touches the child's interest (fire engine, police car, ship, tools, stuffed animals...)
if it has to do with water (like the water canal systems)

The toys, our son uses most often (at home, we don't know exactly, what he does in the kindergarten) are at the moment

his wooden railway and the
duplo bricks (with people, animals, vehicles, ...)
EDIT: now LEGO or Baufix (wooden parts with holes, which can be assembled with wooden screws)
a cassette player
and handicraft working (scissors, paper, water color, ...)
and he has several favorite cuddly toys
Comment: My 14 month old daughter loves to turn the stereo on/off...as a matter of fact, anything with a button that has an immediate/discernable response(music, light, etc.) becomes a favorite...she always goes back to the object and presses the button.
Comment: Very true, every new toy gets played with a lot for the first few days then it slacks off.  Good points!
Answer: I liked what Beofett said in the How many toys are enough / too much thread.  He suggested that the best toys are toys that you can create things with (crayons, legos, etc.).  This held true for my brother and I as we were growing up-- while I only played with my easy bake oven for a few months, we played with our block set and legos for many years without getting bored with them.
Comment: +1 LEGO and art supplies kept me occupied whenever I was indoors. There's also K'NEX and Erector/Meccano, which can be used to make all kinds of semi-useful widgets.
Answer: Based on numerous observations: often the favorite toys for a lot of kids are things that can serve as containers - from the standard "carton box from a toy" to assorted boxes/bottles/bags/etc...
Comment: Plus, they emulate adults. E.g. "take the lunchbag like papa and go to work", "put things in a box to organize them", "this is my wallet" etc...
Comment: This point is illustrated nicely by this book.  Not A Box http://www.amazon.com/Not-Board-Book-Antoinette-Portis/dp/0061994421
Comment: +1 @DVK: Any idea why? Also, guess the answers reminds me of all the bags, containers, etc. warning that they're not toys; meaning that kids must use them as toys.
Comment: The containers enable the kids to play roles and act - more or less the core of what playing is.
Comment: I think containers ares so interesting, as it enables "interaction" between things. You can put them in and out, transport them - also lorries or other "carrying" vehicles are interesting, as the child can load something in, bring it somewhere else and load if off there...
Comment: +1 Eric Kibbee: Agree, the author also nice book named "Not a Stick".
Answer: The favorite will vary from child to child also changing with developmental stages. A favorite for most infants and young toddlers are things with faces. This can be anything from a mirror to a stuffed animal to a doll. The reason this is generally a preferred toy for young children is that their favorite thing to look at is their parents' faces so it is familiar to them. This may never change for some children.
The primary purpose of play with toddlers and young school aged children is to explore roles and they quickly seek out creative play mimicking adults in their life or things they have seen on TV. If they see Mommy cooking every day, they will want toys to imitate that, likewise if there is someone using tools often, etc. My 2 year old nephew current favorite is Swiffer with a section of the handle removed - he helps every day dusting the floors with it and will do so for hours on end.
I do wonder if the question is actually intending to ask what the most "popular" or common favorite toy, as it is a relatively individual thing.
Comment: +1 @Erin: The intent of questions "tends to be the child's favorite" includes factors such as status/popularity of a toy, but in the end was an effort to seek what factors effect a toy becoming highly familiar to a child, and why.
Answer: Reasons for a child selecting a toy might include:

Toy's Status: If the toy is widely recognized, respected, and remembered -- it's more likely to be "naturally selected."
Generational Longevity: While a child might influence an adults toy purchase, in most case adults buy the toys, and adults are more likely to buy toys that they have an emotional connection to according to this survey of 3,000 adult by a top toy news site Toyology.
Durability: If the toy doesn't last, it's less likely to become highly familiar to the child.
Discovery: If the toy fosters learning and creativity, an emotional bond between the child and the toy is more likely.
Innovation: If the toy profoundly changes the way a child plays; for example, gaming systems completely changed the world of toys.
"Adult Like": Children like to pretend their adults, examples include: caring for babies, shooting guns, construction, cooking, and driving.
Portability: The more places the child is able to use the toy, the more likely they're to use it, and the more time they spend with the toy the more likely it is to be their favorite.

If you're looking for a blast from the past, you might check out the National Toy Hall of Fame's "List of Inducted Toys": Atari 2600, Baby Doll, Ball, Barbie, Bicycle, Big Wheel, Candy Land, Cardboard Box, Checkers, Crayola Crayons, Duncan Yo-Yo, Easy-Bake Oven, Erector Set, Etch A Sketch, Frisbee, The Game of Life, G.I. Joe, Hula Hoop, Jack-in-the-Box, Jacks, Jigsaw Puzzle, Jump Rope, Kite, Lego, Lincoln Logs, Lionel Trains, Marbles, Monopoly, Mr. Potato Head, Nintendo Game Boy, Play-Doh, Playing Cards, Radio Flyer Wagon, Raggedy Ann and Andy, Rocking Horse, Roller Skates, Scrabble, Silly Putty, Skateboard, Slinky, Stick, Teddy Bear, Tinkertoy, Tonka Trucks, and the View-Master.
(Yes, this is my question, but after looking into the question more myself, I thought I'd share what I had found.)
Comment: I had to laugh at seeing that "stick" and "ball" had been inducted (and recently, too!), but after reading the justifications on the website, it makes sense.
Comment: I know this is in answer to your own question, and it isn't the most highly voted, but I'm awarding you the bounty for two reasons: you give the best list of *characteristics* of a toy that will possibly result in it becoming a favorite, and the information provided on the National toy Hall of Fame gives a great set of concrete examples that will be helpful for anyone interested in the subject.
Comment: +1 @Beofett: Wow, thank you! If there's way the answer might be improved, feel free to edit it directly, or proved feedback and I'll attempt to address any point you might have. FYI, I'd decided to select the answer based on your choice, since I thought it was awesome you decided to sponsor the question. Cheers!
Answer: We routinely "rotate" the toy selection in the play room, both to keep the quantity of toys constrained, and so that when we re-introduce toys they get that new toy fun! effect.
My kids are 1.5 yr and 3 yr.  Typically whatever one kid is into playing with, the other one wants.  So their tastes in toys ends up completely overlapping.  Doesn't even matter that one's a boy and the other's a girl; the boy has taken complete ownership of my daughter's new baby doll, and the daughter likes to sort through his Duplo blocks.
Given their ages, toys that tend to get rotated out include easily weaponizable toys (i.e. "hammers", "sticks", "baseballs", and "vehicles").  These all move to the garage (and are available during father-son garage time).
We also have some by-request-only "games" which are put away but can be used with adult supervision:  Play doh, crayons, colored pencils, paints, puzzles, games, and a kids electronics set.  All are popular but used infrequently so far.
A few toys have become standards.  They never get rotated out because they get played with frequently and are rarely "trouble".  These are the ones I would consider the all-around long-time "favorites" that get dragged out time and again, and that we are cleaning up and putting away most every night:

Cardboard books.  Big basket of books they can dump out, sort through, etc.
An electronic "laptop computer" with lid that opens and closes and lots of buttons
Duplo blocks.  Divided into several bins; we play with only 1-2 of the bins at a time.  Usually the "Duplo people and animals" bin.
Wooden blocks.  Simple, but never out of style!
Stacking rings
Soft rubber/fuzzy/plastic balls.
Small orange plastic cones.  Only $3 for 4; who knew they had such play potential!
Nylon play tent

Not mentioned but perhaps even more importantly are the plastic containers we use to store and organize all of these.  Often the kids will dump the toys out of the bins and then play with them!  They'll stand on the bins, sit in them, put things in them, use them as "lawn mowers", use the lids as bats for hitting balls, wear them as hats, and so on and so forth.
Indeed, I'd have to say in terms of actual play time, the kids play less with their own toys and more with other common household objects:  The aforementioned containers; remote controls; blankets and pillows from the couches; the couches; any stools, chairs, or movable furniture; napkins; pot lids; cat toys; spatulas (HUGE favorite!); rubber bands; laundry baskets; everything from the magazine rack (torn to shreds); the telephone; laptop computers; brooms and vacuum parts; the laundry; etc.
Oddly, anything we'd put in our recycling bin weirdly ends up being the perfect toy.  Of course we wash everything before we put it into the recycling bin, so at first we weren't that bothered by them dumping it out and strewing egg cartons and cardboard boxes and plastic containers across the kitchen, but it's so consistent we eventually had to just put the recycling bin up on a counter so the couldn't get into it and had to stick with their own toys.  But giving them an odd cardboard paper roller, or plastic snack container, or egg carton can give them an evening's activity.  Go figure.
Answer: I agree with BBM, that for a child, every new toy becomes their favorite toy.  This is also the same observation I am seeing with my child. But I also try my best to give him developmental toys which will help or aid him in his learning. I buy books, media and toys that would help him improve his vocabulary, word knowledge and so on, so he can learn easily. At home, we also try to play Scrabble, and or read books, so he could see our interest, so in a way, he can be influenced. He would know the kind of games that we play. There are even some scrabble boards specially made for children, which can help them learn words in a fun way.
Answer: Favorite toys of a child may vary from age to age. The primary purpose of any toy for toddlers is to engage them and create a value for them. A toy becomes favourite to a child when he or she is engaged in it for a longer period of time. He or she feels independent and take decisions on his own. The toy which lets the child use his or her creativity becomes the favourite in the lot.


How do prokaryotes perform cellular respiration without membrane-bound organelles?

Question: In order to survive, prokaryotes such as bacteria need to produce energy from food such as glucose. In eukaryotic cells, respiration is performed by mitochondria, but prokaryotic cells do not have membrane-enclosed organelles. How do prokaryotic cells respirate without mitochondria?
Comment: This Wikipedia page has information on endosymbiosis a.k.a symbiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
Answer: Mitochondria are very similar to bacteria and are thought to have originated from bacteria. This points you to the answer: bacteria produce ATPs the same way mitochondria do, with the oxidation machinery place in their plasma membrane (analogous to the mitochondrial membrane).
Comment: If you could add a diagram or a reference then it would be great.
Answer: An electrochemical gradient is needed to carry out cellular respiration. Compartimentalization is necessary for gradients to exist. Both mitochondria and certain bacteria possess a double membrane, between which a gradient can be kept. Essentially, they are acid-containing bags which in turn enclose cytoplasm-containing bags. Mitochondria can be thought of as bacteria living in permanent symbiosis with their eukaryotic hosts. Conversely, those bacteria can be thought of as their own mitochondria.


Fight with creativity burnout

Question: I have big creativity burnout :/ Do you have any ideas how can I fight with it ??
Comment: cancel internet, stay away from pc's and do a job which is far away from IT like gardening, waiter etc. for at least 3 month ... it clears your mind and boosts your interest again, at least it did for me
Comment: Is this really game-dev related? Maybe try http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ ?
Comment: @Kylotan, and it's clearly not game-development specific either... Based on the generic question, the OP could be an ad-writer burned out after the Superbowl :) . Basically, it's a *[Boat Question](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14470/what-is-the-boat-programming-meme-about)*.
Comment: Creativity is not programming specific. Some would argue quite the opposite, in fact. (I am not such a person.)
Comment: To be fair, lots of questions could fall into the "not gamedev specific" category. Animation, audio, rendering, networking, pretty much any game development question could equally apply to simulations, or music software, or web apps, or any number of things. This one here is certainly a vague question but it's still very pertinent to most of us - creativity is a far more relevant issue to most game developers than being able to program on a boat is!
Comment: @Kylotan, I suppose... The other problem I have with the question is that **it has no single correct answer** (although you'll probably get the checkmark :) . I would be less concerned if it were CW, I suspect. In any case, mine is the only downvote, so clearly you're correct. :^
Comment: This question appears to be off-topic because it is about personal productivity.
Answer:
Force yourself. The best creative works are 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration. If the ideas aren't flowing, still, keep working. Get your mind into the habit of getting work done and that is half the battle right there.
Seek out interesting stimuli. If you're making games, stop looking to other games for inspiration: Watch films, visit a museum, read a book, attend a talk.
Improve your skills. Often what we call burnout is really frustration, perhaps because we're having trouble fleshing out an idea or implementing a design. If this is true, ask other designers how they overcome problems, or read books such as The Art of Game Design to gain a fresh perspective on your game, or scour a few blogs to gain inspiration from published games.
Improve or change your tools. Related to the skills issue is the tools issue. Sometimes you just need to use different tools to see the work in a different light and perhaps discover new ways to make progress. If you normally write linear design docs, try a mind-map, or a Wiki. If you make maps in a 3D editor, try sketching them on paper or using a 2D tile editor. Try a different graphics app, audio app, programming language, game engine or library, or game-maker environment. A subtly different approach can often result in a massively different result.
Work with artificial constraints and starting points. Pick 2 random nouns from a dictionary and try to combine them into some sort of gameplay. Go for a walk and try to think of games based around things that you see. Look up a film on IMDB.com and see how you would make a game out of it. Take a game you know well and see if you could rework the essence of its gameplay to work with one button, or two colours, or audio only.
Rediscover your original motivation. If you care about burnout, that implies that you feel unable to do something which you really wish to do. Why do you wish to design games? Think back on what originally caught your interest, imagine the context and the possibilities that you saw, and recapture the feeling.
Back to the first one - force yourself. If you can follow Chris's suggestion and take 3 months off to recharge your batteries then that is great, but most of the time you can't afford to only work half the time. Get used to making those first marks on an intimidatingly blank canvas, and don't worry about failure - you can revise and improve your work later, as long as you do the work in the first place. Even the greatest novels consist 1/3rd of words like "the", "and", "is", and so on - and there's no reason why that requires inspiration or creativity. Keep designing - you can improve it later.
Comment: +1 for the very well thought out answer.  I especially like the first part, although you may wish to add 5% suffering and 5% tears... :)
Comment: Very great answer, the only thing I miss is **musical** inspiration from the second paragraph. Even if it only inspires for 10 minutes, it might just be enough to get you going.
Answer: Help others with their problems. You will naturally seek creative solutions for them and the juices will start flowing again.
Answer: I've found this helpful, and it can also be found in "If you want to write" by Brenda Ueland.
Take a walk.
A long walk. At least 45 minutes. With no specific destination. Don't try to think about anything specific. At some point, things just start to pop in your head.
Answer: I've been finding side projects help a lot. I went and got a job at an actual game studio, and somehow, spending forty hours a week plowing through game bugs makes me more productive at home, even discounting the fewer hours I work on my own projects.
If I end up leaving this studio I'll probably contract myself out as an indie game coder. You provide art and design and money, I make your game, and on the side, I make my game.
Another trick I've found is that, if you start getting bored with writing a game, start a different game. You have to be really careful with this one so you don't just leave a trail of abandoned games behind, but as long as you keep going back to them, juggling two or three dev projects can leave you more productive on all of them than you'd be individually.
Answer: Another thing to try is tidy your workspace. Clean the whole space from top to bottom. Get rid of everything you don't need - even if that is into a box to deal with later.
You may find that the clearing of space also has a clearing of mind effect.
Answer: There is some good tips
HERE and more info.

Do Something You Love Doing / Spending Time On Your Hobbies
Take a Break
Spend Time with Others
Change Surroundings
Read Magazines, Books, Websites
Inspirational Websites and Galleries
Browse Portfolios
Visit a Creative Showcase (art, theatre, etc)
Travel
Work Out / Stay Active
Evaluate
Answer: Make a strict schedule for your project. Don't spend too much time on a single aspect of a game or you'll end up with filler content that just makes your game harder to make in the long run. Using a role playing game as an example, making a ton of classes means making more equipment and skills, which in turn means more work when balancing the gameplay. This is an example of Parkinson's Law. I'm just getting over game design burnout myself by following this principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

Fight with creativity burnout


In ion engines, how is energy removed from the electric field that is used to accelerate the particles?

Question: A basic ion engine uses a positively charged plate and passes positively charged ions over it to accelerate them. How does the charged plate draw current to accelerate the ions? It seems that a positively charged ion passing over the plate would just cause an oscillation in the charges in the plate, and not a current.
Comment: Although there are some errors in this question's description (typical ion engines have two grids, a screen, charged positive, and an accelerator, charged negative, though some have more), the basic question is a good one that delves into the fundamental physics of acceleration of charged particles. When a static electric field (which requires no current to maintain) accelerates a charged particle, the particle gains kinetic energy. Where does that energy come from?
Answer: Rephrasing to "what's the source of the kinetic energy when a bit of charge is accelerated by the electric field between two plates?"
The energy comes from the decrease in voltage across the capacitor formed by the two plates or, if there's a voltage source (i.e. battery or power supply attached) it comes from that source.
To see that, consider the two plates as a parallel-plate capacitor of capacitance $C$, initially with voltage $V$.  The charge on each plate (plus on one, minus on the other) necessary for that voltage is $Q = CV$.
Now move a small charge $\Delta Q$ from one plate to the other.  The small charge gains energy $V \Delta Q$.  But now the plates have only charge $Q-\Delta Q$. The energy stored is in general $E = Q^2/(2C)$, so it becomes $(Q-\Delta Q)^2/(2C)$ which (for small $\Delta Q$) becomes
$(Q-\Delta Q)^2/(2C) = Q^2 (1-\Delta Q/Q)^2/(2C) \simeq Q^2/(2C) - Q\Delta Q/C = Q^2/(2C) - V\Delta Q$
which means the energy lost by the plates is $V\Delta Q$, exactly equal to what was gained by the moving charge.
If there's a battery or power supply to keep the voltage $V$ constant, it'll have to add charge to replace the $\Delta Q$ that moved, and it will have to provide $V \Delta Q$ energy to do that. In that case, the energy comes out of the battery, and goes back into the capacitor to make it even.
There's also some interesting of bits physics arising from the charge moving past the plate and continuing off into space, but that's probably another question.
Comment: Bob's answer is exactly right (good job!) if the first plate, the one the particle is leaving, charges the particle, i.e. part of the charge from that plate goes to the particle, and that charge is then deposited on the second plate. But for ion engines, the ionization (charging) doesn't occur at the first plate (screen grid), it occurs farther upstream, so it doesn't take any charge from that grid. And designers actively try to avoid having the ions inpinge on the accelerator grid (largely successfully), so no intentional charge transfer there. I'll add an answer.
Answer: The source of the accelerated ion's energy involves the electric potential field in the engine. Comparison to a more intuitive potential field, the gravitational field, can help with the understanding.
Imagine a mass suspended beneath a balloon, at equilibrium so its altitude is constant. This system is within the Earth's gravitational potential field, where the gravitational potential is low (very negative) at the surface, grading to higher (less negative) as you go up. The kinetic energy of both parts, the balloon and the mass, is zero. The upward force exerted by the balloon is equal in magnitude to the downward force on the mass. Now if you cut the cable connecting them, the mass screams downward and the balloon zooms upward. The mass responds to the gradient in the surrounding potential field, moving from higher potential to lower potential, and accelerates downward. The balloon, with a "negative mass", accelerates upward.
[I know, I know, somewhat contrived: you have to treat the surrounding atmosphere as zero mass density to get the balloon's lower mass density to appear as a "negative mass", but I have to do something to connect the analogy with the +/- polarity dichotomy in electrodynamics that gravity doesn't have!]
Where did the kinetic energy of the falling mass come from? Answer: gravitational potential energy. Merely as a result of its position within the potential field it had that potential energy. Cutting the cable allowed the mass to move from higher potential to lower potential, converting the potential energy into kinetic energy.
Now look at the ion engine and its electrical potential field. For ease of making this analogy, point the engine's exhaust plume downward. In the discharge chamber and at the screen grid the electrical potential is high and positive. At the accelerator grid the potential is negative, so there's a strong decrease in potential between the chamber and screen and the accelerator. Having an atom in the chamber is like having the connected balloon and mass in the gravitational potential field: the positive charges want to "fall" in one direction (downward, toward the grids and space) and the negative (buoyant?? ;-)) charges want to float upward, toward the anode. As long as the charge on the atom is neutral you have equal numbers of positive and negative charges, so the net force from the potential gradient is zero, and the atom doesn't accelerate.
But when you knock an electron from the atom the equilibrium is ended. You've "cut their cable". The positive ion accelerates downward, in the direction of decreasing potential, just like the mass from the balloon analogy. And the electron heads upward. Unlike the gravity example, where the change in the gravitational potential is a smooth function of altitude, the electrical potential field is more uneven: the gradient is much, much stronger between the two grids, so the bulk of the acceleration happens there.
Note: no charges were transferred from or to either of the grids in this interaction. All the ion's kinetic energy came from its fall through the potential field.
Note 2: "...in this interaction,", i.e. when the ion successfully goes through grid holes and doesn't impact a grid. In reality, sometimes charged particles will impact the grids, and charges will be moved around. This is not always by a simple charge transfer, where an impacting positive ion steals an electron from a grid atom, changing the grid's charge and thus necessitating a bit of power from the power supply. For example, the ion can steal one and also knock another one off into space, for a two-charge interaction that requires double the power to restore.
The preceding in no way implies that no currents are required in an ideal ion engine. The exhaust plume is a directed flow of positive charges, and that's a current. I calculated the beam current for an ideal Xenon engine with a beam velocity of 30 km/s (Isp = 3059) and thrust of 1 Newton: 24.5 Amps. For each singly-ionized Xenon ion, an electron must go into the discharge chamber's anode, so right there is 24.5 Amps into the anode. But if the engine uses the Kaufman method, a hollow cathode shoots electrons into the chamber to knock other electrons from the Xenon, and those shot-in electrons also must find their way to the anode (precious few make their way into space!), increasing the anode current. For each electron taken from a Xenon atom, an electron must be fired from the beam neutralizer outside of the grids, so there's the 24.5 Amps again. And those 24.5 Amps of electrons must be pumped from a very high positive potential at the anode to a very low potential at the neutralizer. Electrons naturally want to flow the other way, like in the chamber where they head for the anode, so pumping that much current that direction takes a lot of power. If you use NSTAR-like specs that potential difference is somewhere around 1200-1300 Volts, requiring a power of ~31 kW. This doesn't include any of the inefficiencies and losses a real engine must contend with, so the power you'd have to supply to a real engine would be larger.
Answer: I think the point of the question is that the ions do not touch the positive screen, which is true, by and large. They also don't touch the negative grid which has already been mentioned. However, they have to come from somewhere. So there is an ion source, responsible for ionising the atoms and releasing them close to the positive plate. There also has to be an electron source, since a beam of electrons is sent out somewhere to stop the spacecraft building up too much negative charge. So the current flows between those two sources. The energy is required to make that current flow, to raise the ions to sufficient positive potential or the electrons to sufficient negative potential.
Answer: Let's see if we can find the simplest, yet valid, way to look at this.
Invoke Newton's principle of action and reaction. Introduce an electron between two plates, one positively charged and the other negatively charged, which is the configuration of a capacitor. The electron will experience a force directed to the positive plate (action), and the two plates will experience equal and opposite forces (reaction): the negative plate force is in the direction away from the electron, and the positive plate force is in the direction of the electron.  Thus, both plates experience the same force in the same direction.
The force on the electron accelerates the electron towards the positive plate, and the force on the plates accelerate both plates in the direction opposite to that of the force on the electron.  By "plates," I mean here all the apparatus connected to the actual capacitor plates. Because of the relative masses, of course the electron accelerates much more than the plates.  In these moments of electron acceleration, there is no change in the electric field set up by the two plates.
There is only the gain of kinetic energies of both the electron and the two plates, which must be equal, from conservation of energy.  When the electron hits the positive plate, the previous forces experienced by the electron and the plates cease. The negative electron charge then reduces the charge on the positive plate, and the reduced charge on the positive plate then causes a reduction of the negative charge on the negative plate, because of the way capacitor charges are established, by induction.  In addition, the momentum of the electron causes a momentum change in the negative plate, reducing the motion that it experienced during the acceleration stage of this process. But the positive plate will continue its motion, which achieves an increase in the separation distance between the two plates.
The net effect is to cause the stored charge of the two plates to be reduced and with an increase in separation distance.  Both these results drops the stored charge - energy - in the capacitor (two charged, separated plates).
From this line of reasoning, there's no way to explain a simple transfer of solely electrical energy between the plates and the electron, since mechanical, electrical, and heat (internal) energy of the plates are all involved.  (The stage where the electron becomes incorporated into the surface of the positive plate can be considered to be a dissipation of energy.)  I presume that the law of Conservation of Energy does apply here, and further investigation would be required in order to prove that is indeed the case.
Comment: Sources, or people might think you're making it up as you go along.
Comment: JCRM, "making it up as you go along"?  My approach is to use step by step deductive reasoning, invoking the most basic principles of physics.  I suppose my references would be any undergraduate fundamental College textbook on classical physics.  The Feynman Lecture series would be one example.  I think a reference would be necessary if I invoke knowledge beyond basic concepts, but I don't do that.
Comment: @JCRM none of these answers are sourced ._. Except the one Tom Spiker commented on, I suppose he's a source.
Comment: @MagicOctopusUrn the other answers have the advantage of going along with my understanding of how an ion engine works.


What is RAW, technically?

Question: From a technical perspective, what exactly is RAW and how does it differ from JPG or bitmap images? I'm not asking about the pros/cons versus another format, but rather what constitutes RAW format, how is the data stored, how does it differ from JPG (other than lack of compression), and how is it different than bitmap?
Answer: RAW is data that is extracted from the camera at an earlier stage of processing.
This allows further processing to be carried out later on a computer at will.  Notably, it avoids the lossy processing steps of demosaicing, sharpening/noise reduction, and JPEG compression being permanently applied to the resulting image file before it leaves the camera.
When you take a photo:
Here's what happens when you take a photo, and at what stages of processing the RAW and JPEG images are extracted.

Bayer filter
The shutter opens and light enters the camera.  The light is filtered through a bayer color filter so each pixel on the sensor only receives either red, green or blue light.  This is required because without it the sensor is monochrome.
Sensor
The light hits the sensor (often through tiny microlenses which help gather more light into the sensitive part of the pixel).  It's then converted into millions of analogue impulses, each one corresponding to a pixel.
Analogue to digital conversion
The analogue impulses are amplified to the correct amount according to the sensitivity (ISO rating) selected and then they are converted into digital values using an analogue to digital converter, at a certain bit depth.  After this stage you have millions of (typically 12- or 14-bit) digital values in a stream.
Note that the method for analogue to digital conversion is very different in CMOS and CCD sensors.  For instance, a CMOS sensor contains a transistor in each pixel to assist with this, but suffice to say that at the end, you still get a bunch of digital values.
Black level adjustment
The camera needs to determine the correct black level, since the sensor will not necessarily return zero for pixels that are black.  For example, the ambient heat of the sensor may cause some signal. Correcting for this is often done by reading sensor data from some edge pixels which are permanently covered so light can't reach them.  Then it subtracts an appropriate value from the other results.  It may do other corrections on the digital data - it may try to reduce some types of noise, such as background noise caused by the sensor.
Sometimes the digital values may then further be multiplied or divided in order to reach the right sensitivity (ISO) value, if you are using an ISO value that your sensor doesn't do natively.
This is where RAW data is extracted.
If you shoot RAW, none of the steps below here are permanently applied to the image file as it comes out of your camera, allowing you to apply them at will in your RAW software instead.
Demosaicing
Each value is in fact either a red, green or blue value.  However, you need each pixel to have all three colours - red, green and blue - for the final image.  Therefore, a demosaicing algorithm has to guess the other two colour parts for each pixels, and it does this based on knowledge of surrounding pixels.  There are a variety of different demosaicing algorithms with varying qualities, and it is a lossy process.  If this occurs in-camera, then you are stuck with the camera's built-in algorithm.
Colour space conversion
Red, green and blue in the Bayer filter are not necessarily the same hue as red, green and blue in the standard sRGB colour space.  The camera then does colour correction to convert the colours into the desired colour space, which is usually sRGB.
White balance
White balance correction is applied to correct for different colour temperatures of light sources while taking the picture.
Gamma correction
Gamma correction is applied which converts from the linear values to gamma corrected values as required by digital image files.  This correction is not a straight gamma correction; a contrast curve is applied to ensure that highlights and blacks curve off nicely giving it a nice film-like appearance.
Sharpening and noise reduction
An appropriate amount of sharpening and noise reduction are applied to enhance the image and try to suppress annoying noise.  There are different sharpening and noise reduction algorithms, and this is a lossy procedure.  If this is done in-camera, then you are stuck with whatever sharpening and noise reduction was applied by the camera.
JPEG compression
The resulting image data is compressed as a JPEG.  This is also, obviously, a lossy procedure.
This is where a JPEG file would be generated.

More about the RAW format
To create the RAW file, raw data from steps 1 to 4 above is assembled into a file format, which is usually a proprietary, manufacturer-specific file format based on the TIFF format.  The data is sometimes compressed using a simple lossless compression algorithm and sometimes part of it is also encrypted.
Within the RAW file, the camera embeds a whole lot of metadata, with all the information necessary to do the extra processing steps later according to the camera's settings.  This includes information like what white balance, sharpening and contrast settings are selected in the camera.  RAW software can then choose to follow this advice or ignore it.
The camera also embeds a JPEG file into the RAW file, which it can then use when playing back the image in the in-camera "play" mode.  This embedded JPEG adds a little to the size of RAW file but it means the camera doesn't have to apply all that processing every time the image is viewed in play mode.  RAW processing software on computers largely ignores the embedded JPEG, though some software may use it for a fast preview mode or for generating fast thumbnails.  It is generally a fairly low quality JPEG, good enough for previewing only.
Comment: Note: generally, demosaicing algorithms (step 5) will also do some sharpening as part of the demosaicing.  This will often be in addition to further sharpening done at step 9.
Comment: point #1 - Bayer filters change sensitivity to different wavelengths of light. But *some* green light does make it through the red and blue filters, and *some* red and blue light makes it through the green filters.
Comment: That is true, but that is also equivalent to saying "each value is a 'red', 'green', or 'blue' value in a given color space whose definition of red, green and blue is defined by the bayer filter" is it not?
Comment: I'm not so sure about step #4 being before the RAW extraction.  I seem to recall that at least historically, a big difference between Canon and Nikon cameras (that had a big impact on astrophotography) was that Nikon clipped the images at the black point and Canon did not.  I could be remembering wrong, though.
Comment: Note that some cameras actually _do_ apply some  noise reduction at step 4. (Sony A850, for example.)
Comment: Some cameras do apply lens correction in-camera.  On all the cameras I've used that have done this, the RAW file does not have the lens correction pre-applied so the camera has done it *after* that step.
Comment: point #5 - Each value is *not* a red, blue, or green value. Each value is still a monochrome luminance value *weighted* for a particular wavelength of light but that also includes other wavelengths of light in a diminishing response curve as the wavelength gets further away from the wavelength for which the bayer filter is attenuated for that pixel.
Comment: All cameras need to arrive at a "black point" in some way or another, calculated on a per-image basis due to constantly changing environmental factors like ambient temperature.  The control data from the blacked out edge pixels is not included in the RAW file to my knowledge, so my belief is this could only be done prior to RAW file generation.  But, I can't claim to be 100% sure especially from the Canon side.
Comment: @thomasrutter The 'red', 'green', and 'blue' colors filters that make up the Bayer CFA are not the same three colors as the "Red", "Green", and "Blue" used by our RGB color reproduction systems. In the Case of 'red', it's not even close. The 'red' filters on a typical bayer mask are pretty much somewhere between 'yellow-green' (580nm) and 'yellow-orange' (600nm) than "RED" (640nm).
Comment: @thomasrutter Canon raw files do preserve the masked pixels in the raw image data and, when using an application that accesses that data the black point *can* be changed after the fact. (Adobe applications ignore it and discard it when exporting).
Answer: Raw files aren't really images as such, but the data straight off of the camera's sensor. I think of it as freezing the state of the camera immediately after the exposure has finished, and bundling it up into a file, normally with some kind of lossless compression. The wikipedia article provides a fair amount of detail about the sort of thing that's recorded, but as a guide I'd say:

All the levels readings from the sensor
Some information about the sensor type (so the Raw converter knows how to interpret the sensor data)
All of the settings currently applied to the camera
The time and other EXIF-type meta-data associated with the image
Possibly a JPEG thumbnail image

Bear in mind that there is no single Raw format, and all camera manufacturers are free to bundle up this sort of data in their own way. Adobe is trying to promote its DNG (Digital Negative) format, which I personally use, as a standard RAW format. A few cameras can output DNG, but most have to be converted. I do this on import into Lightroom, as one of the advantages is that it can store Lr edit data within the file, and not require xml sidecars. Another advantage of DNG is that it tends to result in smaller file sizes than native Raw files.
I would imagine that because of how most sensors are built with a Bayer filter-type design, the data from the sensor just contains levels from each photo-site on the sensor. A bitmap, for example, would have combined the RGB sites to form a single pixel.
Comment: Adobe's attempt to standardize RAW formats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format)

Also, RAW files are often loslessly compressed.
Comment: DNG is more of a container than an actual format. The raw convertor still needs to know the characteristics of the sensor that took the shot and apply the appropriate demosaicing for that particular sensor.
Answer: RAW is a copy of the data from the sensor.  JPEG has been refined.
Summary
A RAW file is a direct dump of the data which the camera captures.
A JPEG file has been derived from that RAW data by a process of sharpenning, colour correction and compression.
Detail
The heart of a digital camera is a light-sensitive chip known as a sensor.
A RAW file is pretty much a copy of the data directly from this chip when it an image is captured.  As such, the image file is not readily recognisable as an image because:

it is not in any widely recognised file format
it has not been refined in any way

A JPEG file, on the other hand, is both a standard file format, and has had some refinement applied to the image to make it look better.  These refinements include correcting for white balance and sharpenning.  Also, a JPEG has typically had some compression appiled.  So the process of creating a JPEG discards data which was originally present on the sensor, and which will be preserved in a RAW file.
Both a RAW file and a JPEG are kinds of bitmaps (they both represent individual pixels).
Many cameras are capable of generating both a JPEG and a RAW file for each image.
When to use each
JPEG is better if

you want a usable file straight from your camera
space on your memory card is at a premium
you want to shoot images in very quick succession

RAW is better if

you want to post-process the file
you want to keep your options open for exposure or white balance
you want the highest possible level of detail (I could be wrong about this - depends on the camera)

disclaimer
I have skipped some of the details here (see comments) in order to make the basics clear.
Comment: The camera still applies all the post-processing to the RAW file, it just saves it in a reversible way.  To demonstrate this, you can put your camera (in RAW) in black and white mode, take a photo, and you'd get a black and white image even though your camera took a color photo, then converted it. This common demo is used to show the flexibility of RAW because you can open the B&W RAW file in software and change the camera mode to "Normal" and get the color version back.  If it was shot in JPG, you'd lose the color version.
Comment: Full disclosure:  I didn't remember in time to edit:  In RAW not all post-processing is applied, but color enhancement and correction like white balance is.  Things like sharpness and noise reduction are not applied.  Sorry for the double comment.
Comment: +1 this answer doesn't deserve a demotion at all. The camera only processes a small jpeg as a thumbnail to display to the user, it doesn't process the original information when using RAW.
Comment: @Erica: I think what you are trying to say is that the camera hardware applies a `tone curve` to raw image data, which they do. Each channel is *processed* by applying a tone curve, which effectively "adds" the proper white balance and contrast. In reality, however, no real processing is being done, the tone curve just attenuates the image when it is rendered to a screen. If a linear tone curve is applied to each channel, the original raw state can still be viewed (although the image would look rather drab.)
Comment: @jrista:  The end result is that when someone opens the image on their screen, they'll see that a RAW image that is not much different than the equivalent JPG ...I was just trying to clarify the difference in a more practical and less technical way.
Comment: @EricaMarshall When someone opens the image on their screen the raw data is being converted to a viewable format by the application with which one opens the file. One is not viewing the raw data from the file directly without processing (unless the application is displaying the preview jpeg generated in camera, rather than the actual raw data).
Answer: I think this question can better be answered by wikipedia for the most technical aspects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format.
In general, RAW is the exact output of the sensor. It can be compressed, or not, but the main difference between JPEG and RAW is that RAW is a loss-less format. JPEG has an 8-bit per pixel depth, while RAW can have as many bits as the sensor has. So, in order to get from RAW to JPEG you have to lose a LOT of information to get from, let's say, 12-bit per pixel to 8-bit per pixel.
RAW formats are what cameras use. After that, when you are post-processing you would use a TIF format to maintain as much information as possible. TIF is also a loss-less format and it will keep the same bit depth as RAW.
Comment: But the demosaicing used to generate the tiff from the raw file is irreversibly baked in. The actual monochromatic luminance values from each pixel well in the sensor are replaced by calculated RGB values for each pixel. The black point and color temperature/wb used to generate those RGB values can not later be reversed.
Answer: If you took a look at the image that your camera initially takes, you'd be disappointed in it.  After an image is taken, the photo is run through what you can think of as post-processing within the camera to boost the color, contrast, sharpness, etc.
When you shoot in RAW you get roughly the same image as you would with JPG, but you get all the data necessary to "undo" all that in-camera post-processing so that you can do it differently yourself if you want to.
When you shoot in JPG, the camera records the data, processes the image, then deletes that "undo" data to save room on your memory card.

More technical info can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
Or if you want to qualify in a degree in RAW and camera processing check out these videos from the Google PhotoTechEDU talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=7SuDOMhUUMg&feature=PlayList&p=F7C5C8C217CF2E13&index=1&playnext=1
Comment: Thinking of it as "undo" data works conceptually but isn't technically accurate. And since the question says "technically"....

What is RAW, technically?


How to allow quick toggling between two out of several values?

Question: An Android app provides several possible values for a setting. The user needs to be able to quickly toggle between two of the settings, A and B. 95% of the time they will only be interested in A and B, and may be switching between the frequently. However they also need to be able to select C, D, or E on occasion. What is the best control and/or interaction method to allow this kind of selection shortcut?
Comment: Windows 7 does this with power plans...I'll try and get a screenshot tonight
Answer: I would love a dropdown but considering this is an android app, the dropdown might not be the best option.
For the  user to quickly toggle between two "favorable options" and not get distracted by the others, I'd hide the "unfavorable options" and show them only when necessary.
In the mockups I've taken a checkout case, where

option A could be Credit card
option B could be Debit card

The two favorable options, and others could have

option C as cheque
option D as offline payment
option E as Demand draft

Again, they don't have to be radio buttons, they could be really well designed buttons, the point is to hide the "unfavorable" ones and show the ones the user picks most frequently.
Answer: I agree with the first answer that proposes to hide the less used.
But it's very important not to complicate the matter further by introducing some kind of hierarchy to it such as category "popular" and category "others." Because they are just options, no need to group them that way.
So instead, you can just show the two most used options, then have a different kind of button for "more," so the user know where to click if they want to see more options. After the More button is clicked, then hide the More button, and spawn the other options, but also show a border between the original options and the newly-spawned ones, because the user need to know what are newly added out of all the options presented.

Pick an option:
1) Option 1
2) Option 2
[more options]

After more button is clicked

Pick an option:
1) Option 1
2) Option 2
---------------
3) Option 3
4) Option 4
5) Option 5
Answer: I hate to be boring but the best UI is the one you don't notice.
Just offer a list items of the choices in order of most likely chosen. (A first, B second and so on)
No breaks, No links to "others", no further thought required.
Choose a Setting
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D

Nothing to over think for you either!
You didn't provide any context on what the actual settings are so I assume delivery by list item would be a fine choice. Tap(up pops the list) > Tap top item... done. Tap again > Tap item right below it...setting B. The pattern will be learned immediately.
I learned from direct experience that people tend to choose the first choice from a list of items. We have an interface for generating cut and paste code that opens a booking tool with a tab, button, or embedded in a page. When I redesigned the interface and put button as the first choice, button suddenly became the number one choice.
Answer: What about using an accordion that is laid out like this:

Option A
Option B
Others

Option C
Option D

In this case, clicking A or B will set the option, while clicking on Others will open up the header and allow users to select C or D. The problem is that you won't be able to see the actual option selected if the accordion is collapsed, but you can tweak the default behaviour if the information is important.


Why wine for kiddush?

Question: Why do we use wine (or grape juice - fruit of the vine) when sanctifying Shabbat?  How was it first determined that wine was holy and that it is used to satisfy and make holy the coming holiday or shabbos.  Is there a Torah source for using wine?
Comment: [Pesachim 106a](http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=4&daf=106&format=pdf)
Comment: @DoubleAA , Tosfos zochreihu al hahayin to be more specific who brings pesukim
Answer: According to Rambam the requirement of saying kiddush and havdalah over wine is a Rabbinic addition to the Torah commandment to sanctify the Sabbath by saying kiddush at it's beginning and havdalah at it's end.

הלכות שבת כט,ו
מדברי סופרים לקדש על היין, ולהבדיל על היין.
It is a Rabbinic requirement to make Kidush on wine and to make
  Havdalah on wine.

According to him the wine that is used must be fit for use on the altar which means he does not allow cooked wine for example.

הלכות שבת כט,יד
אין מקדשין אלא על היין הראוי לנסך על גבי המזבח;
One does not make Kiddush except on wine that is suitable as a wine
  libation on the alter;

I'm not sure when this enactment was made, but if it was made after the destruction of the Temple, I would guess that it's in remembrance of the wine libation.  That would be the source in the Torah for wine being special.  But that's just a guess.  That's if you accept this opinion that the wine used must be fit for use on the altar ( and I think not everyone does ).
Comment: Are you trying to answer "Is there a Torah source for using wine?"
Comment: @DoubleAA I'm trying to answer all three questions.
Answer: I heard a wonderful shiur from R Akiva Tatz on the question of why we use wine at every special occasion (kiddush, but also at a brit mila or a wedding).
He explains we use wine every time there is a transition or an expansion from the limited/narrow/physical world to the unlimited/spiritual/transcendent world; every time we lift the mundane into the spiritual. This is true when the week becomes Shabbat (see also the end of Derech Hashem by the Ramchal where he explains how Shabbat is at a higher level than the week), when two people become married (and become a new, more spiritual entity, that can now give birth to others), when a boy enters the alliance and fully becomes a Jew.
We use wine in all these occasions because wine (and alcohol) is the only physical/material substance that gets better over time. Regular material things degrade over time (i.e., entropy: food left alone will spoil, the body gets weaker with the years) while spiritual things improve over time (e.g., we reach higher levels as we learn, older people are wiser). Wine, being the only physical thing that improves over time, symbolizes the potential of the physical to access the spiritual, the ability to transcend the mundane and sanctify it.
The gematria of wine (yayin) is 70, the same as the one of secret (sod). As the gemara in Sanhedrin 38a says, when wine enters secrets come out: the hidden world comes to the surface. Wine, used correctly, expands our spiritual potential.
In summary, wine is only thing in the world that follows the rules of a spiritual substance even though it is physical. As such we use wine to show our potential to bring out the spiritual side of the physical reality.
Comment: Which of these applies to wine over, say, beer (except the gematria of course)?
Comment: He speaks of wine, although you could say the same of all alcohols (e.g., scotch also gets better over time) - but I assume wine is the "most distinguished representative" of all alcohols
Comment: That's circular. _Why_ is wine the most distinguished representative?
Comment: A possible answer to Double AA's question: wine improves with age but beer does not. Beer is best drunk fresh and is very sensitive to its environment and doesn't keep well.

Why wine for kiddush?


How do I calculate the positions of objects in orbit?

Question: In a model of the solar system, given the Sun is at the point $(0, 0, 0)$, an given the six orbital elements for each object in orbit ($a$, $\epsilon$, $i$, $\Omega$, $\omega$, $M_0$), how can I calculate the relative position to the sun at a given time $t$?
Answer: You must solve the Kepler's equation:
$M = E - e \sin E$
(where $M$ is the mean anomaly, $e$ the eccentricity of the orbit, $E$ the eccentric anomaly).
As you can see, this is a transcendental function, so you will probably need to iterate through a calculator, in order to solve it.
Many of useful formulas to understand the parameters dependence are reported on the Wikipedia page as well.
Here is another page with some examples. Just use the formulas and try to play with numbers, at some point you will realize at least orders of magnitude of the binary system elements.
Answer: I'm not sure how much this will help, but I can give you this passage from Wikipedia:

Under ideal conditions of a perfectly spherical central body, and zero perturbations, all orbital elements, with the exception of the Mean anomaly are constants, and Mean anomaly changes linearly with time[dubious – discuss], scaled by the Mean motion, $n=\sqrt{\frac{\mu } {a^3}}$. Hence if at any instant $t_0$ the orbital parameters are $[e_0,a_0,i_0,\Omega_0,\omega_0,M_0]$, then the elements at time $t_0+\delta t$ is given by $[e_0,a_0,i_0,\Omega_0,\omega_0,M_0+n\delta t]$.

In other words, most of the orbital elements (save $M_0$) are constant under very short intervals.


How will IoT devices know the state of the network?

Question: I understand that the plan is to have specific hardware to allow IoT devices to perform the PoW, but how will they know the state of the network in order to perform the MCMC? Wouldn't that require more resources?
Comment: Why wouldn't they use the same way every device or wallet uses?
Comment: can you explain how that works?
Comment: https://iota.stackexchange.com/questions/607/why-are-some-transactions-directly-confirmed-by-two-other-transactions
Answer: Tip selection and PoW are completely different things, which do not necessarily have to happen at the same point.
Tip selection performs MCMC on the tangle to find two transactions (or rather their hashes) your new transaction (or transaction bundle) should approve. This step is not deliberately computationally more expensive than it has to be, so it can be run on full nodes (like it is today when you are using a light wallet, the tip selection runs on a full node).
PoW is some technique to deliberately spend some computation time on finding a partial hash collision, similar to what other cryptocurrencies use to secure the mining. This is deliberately computationally more expensive than it has to be (to make it easier, just reduce the MWM) and is there to make it harder for adversaries to introduce thousands (or tens of thousands) of transactions very quickly into the system.
There are rumors that the IOTA foundation is implementing ternary coprocessor (which, among other things, is expected to perform PoW computation more energy efficiently than current binary processors). This does not have any effect on tip selections, and this coprocessor can probably also used for other tasks that are more efficient in ternary. But keep in mind that this is speculation and there won't be any official statements about it from the IOTA foundation (as they claim that the technology they are working with is under NDA).