How to read and plot seismic waveform data in Ascii format using Obspy?

Question: I wish to plot seismic waveform data using Obspy, bu they are in Ascii format. Is it possible to read and plot Ascii file using Obspy?
Answer: If there is no direct function available, you can create a Trace/Stream object yourself.
The solution I use (example for one time series) is:

read the Ascii file into a numpy array
trace = obspy.core.Trace(data=numpy array, header=header dictionnary of your choice)
stream = obspy.core.Stream(traces=[trace])
stream.plot()
Comment: Thanks for your suggestion.
Answer: good question. I don't have much experience with obspy specifically - nonetheless, I have been unable to locate any functionality to do some kind of TXT to SEGY/SEGD/SEG2 conversion with this particular Python package, which is interesting. I truly doubt obspy is missing this kind of tool. But, in the unlikely and unfortunate case that this mauy be indeed true, I'll list some other (hopefully) viable options for you.
Not all is lost, though. I have done this many times before but NOT with obspy. I have used SeismicUnix before to do this via A2B functionality. Also, I have used both SeisLab (a MATLAB package) and OpendTect to do this. Note that which tool is best is somewhat dependent on what kinda of seismic data you have. For example, if you are looking at a single trace, one software package and/or code may be better suited to solve you problems than if your data are many traces, especially if there are 3-D data.
I found this and though it may be of some use to you - I have not tested it. Lastly, I don't remember, but I think GeoGIGA may have a free software that included such functionality as part of its tool set.
Perhaps watching this will help, too.
Comment: Hi, thanks, the problem is now solved, because of directly using sac files.


How do I set permission of file on samba network drive from windows

Question: I am accessing network drive (Z:\stream) on windows. Now the permission set on stream folder is like chmod -R 777 streams/ means all the files inside stream is at 777 but now i am copying some files from windows to this streams folder but  permission on those files are not 777 ,i would like to have permission 777 on those files that copied from windows ...how do i do that??
Answer: On linux:
Once you copy, you can run chmod again
chmod -R 777 <dir>
Comment: but i can't go to linux machine again from windows i have to do that...
Answer: If your Windows version allows it, use the standard Windows file permission interface under Properties → Security and grant "Read", "Write" and "Execute" (or simply "Full control") permissions to all items listed. (There should be three; the owner, the group, and "Everyone"). Samba will automatically translate them to Unix permissions or to POSIX ACLs.

A command-line method, one that only works for setting 0777, is cacls myfile /g Everyone:F.


Does it make sense to define a computer as a symbol-manipulating device?

Question: Searle (John Searle (1997), The Mystery of Consciousness, p9) says "A computer is by definition a device that manipulates formal symbols". What does he mean? How do you define a piece of electronic hardware (rather than, say, describe it)? Or is he defining the term "computer" to mean a formal-symbol manipulating device? Is he making an empirical statement (that computers by their fundamental nature necessarily manipulate formal symbols and only formal symbols) - which might be true or false - or is he merely saying that from now on when he uses the word "computer" he is referring to formal-symbol manipulating devices? Or does he mean something else?
Comment: The Turing machine is an abstract representation of a computer; it essentially manipulates bits; if you're familiar with micro-processor design you'll see that the analogy holds very well.
Comment: Didn't Turing make the same point? All computation comes down to manipulating symbols according to rules.
Comment: The word was used from 17th century until 1950-s for people whose job was to do computations, not a piece of hardware. In this capacity they were "formal symbol manipulating devices" too. Originally, symbols were typically numerals, but after Church and Turing there was little reason to single out those. Searle is doing what lexicographers do, surmises existing practice concerning the use of a word and makes it more precise for future use. There are *both* empirical and definition-making aspects to it.
Comment: @Roddus: Not even if the "tokenized interpretable shapes" are the voltage levels across all of the transistors comprising the computer?
Comment: Thank for your help. The Chinese room processes (manipulates) instances of shapes that have been given an extrinsic interpretation by an observer. My problem is: it's pretty obvious that computers do not process tokenised interpretable shapes. So the Chinese room – which *does* process tokenised interpretable shapes (Chinese ideograms) – fails to capture the essence of the computer. So if "symbol" means interpretable shape, then it's false to say that a computer is a symbol-manipulating device. And defining a computer as a symbol-manipulating device just seems to add fog to the AI landscape.
Comment: But voltage levels don't have interpretations. We can perceive a shape and give it a meaning (interpretation). Then the shape has an (extrinsic) interpretation. But we can't perceive a clocked voltage level and give it a meaning - we lack the sensory apparatus. We don't have a voltage-level-detecting sense.  So voltage levels have no interpretations – unless computers give it to them. But if this is going to happen like we give a shape a meaning, then the voltage level will be outside the computer, not inside.  The computer will perceive the voltage like we perceive a shape.
Comment: If you've seen his beautiful speech on how to build a language, the answer is that you define it using one syllable words!
Comment: Searle might be making this distinction so as to compare against 'biological machines' which aren't symbol manipulating as I recall he tied consciousness to biology.
Comment: "Formal symbol" typically means "uninterpreted", and even human computers to be efficient have to completely disregard the "meaning" of the numerals they manipulate, they follow mechanical rules not unlike machines. But even if we are insisting on interpreted symbols the identification of interpreting with sense perception is quaint. On this view abstract concepts, like equality, would have no "meaning".
Comment: I see your point. Searle's language here is unclear and he might be describing, proscribing or defining a computer. Your point about symbols also seems spot on. If a symbol is treated as a token then it is a token. Computers don't 'get' symbolism and its inputs are never treated as symbols. I hadn't spotted this linguistic anomaly before.
Answer: Yes, he (correctly) means "a formal-symbol manipulating device". But "manipulation" needs a little clarification. The usual textbook formalism is given by the lambda calculus, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus#Formal_definition (google "lambda calculus" for lots more).
But electronic devices natively implement only a much simpler (architecture-dependent) machine language, something typically more-or-less like Knuth's MIX, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIX (google "Knuth MIX").
However, a lambda-calculus-interpreter can always be written in any such machine language. Indeed, "Church's Thesis" and "Turing Completeness" (more terms for you to google) guarantee that just about any sensible formal idea of "manipulation" is ultimately equivalent to all others.
That is, there's a class of so-called "computable functions" (google that),
meaning that a sequence of symbols representing input (the function's argument) can be manipulated into another sequence representing output (the function's value). If no such manipulations exist, the function's not computable (google "halting function" for a non-computable example). And all computer languages, i.e., all formal ideas of "manipulation", can ultimately calculate exactly the same class of computable functions.
So Searle's ultimately and equivalently saying that consciousness isn't (can't be simulated by) computable functions. But your comment, "...defining a computer as a symbol-manipulating device just seems to add fog to the AI landscape", seems to conflate AI with consciousness. AI, aka "expert systems", are certainly computable, but certainly not consciousness. And nobody ever claims any such thing. I think maybe your question arises from a misunderstanding about that.
Edit... Hmm, now taking a look at your profile, I wouldn't imagine you'd have any confusion/misunderstanding about that. But then I don't see how you'd have any question about Searle's remark whatsoever. So what's your question, more exactly?
Edit (reply to Roddus' comment below)... Firstly, for concreteness, let's please do away with this unnecessarily vague "voltage level" terminology, which you've used here and in preceding comments above. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit#Physical_representation for the correspondence between bits and voltage levels. We're talking about Searle's "symbols" (sequences of bits), regardless of their physical representation, which simply happens to be voltage levels in electronic digital computers.
Regarding "meaning", with respect to computers, I'd guess what you might want to study could be "denotational semantics" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics and many other google hits) and "domain theory" (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_theory ). Then it's the so-called "semantic function", which maps syntax (the denotation represented by strings of symbols) to semantics (the syntax's meaning represented in a so-called Scott domain), that captures the mathematical idea of "meaning" as it pertains to computability. The short paper https://www.cs.colorado.edu/~bec/courses/csci5535/reading/densem.pdf seems like a pretty good intro to me (I'm not googling any wikipedia-type stuff that comes anywhere near adequate). A longer-but-more-comprehensive intro is (seems to me) http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~slonnegr/plf/Book/Chapter9.pdf And/or try googling "semantic function" denotational (put "semantic function" in quotes as shown, followed by denotational) for additional tutorial papers.
As for Searle and his Chinese Room conclusions, you'd need to compare and contrast "meaning" with respect to computers, versus "meaning" with respect to consciousness. But only the former is well-enough-defined for any rigorous comparison. And if you're really interested, I think you might need to further study domains, maybe particularly the idea of approximation as represented by their poset ordering, whereby "meaning" can start out vague and become better-and-better defined with more-and-more syntax. But that would involve a pretty significant effort, far afield from any direct relation to "consciousness". So I wouldn't recommend it unless you're really, really interested.
The theoretical computer science aspects might (again judging from your profile) be adequately interesting, but maybe not the related-to-consciousness aspects... Are computers (i.e., can computers simulate) "conscious"? Or can they exhibit behaviour indistinguishable from consciousness? Searle apparently says "no". Whether or not his argument's conclusive is maybe debatable, but his definition of "computer" is entirely adequate. Any further argument would have to discuss the ultimate capabilities of "symbol manipulation" -- just how far can that take you? And that's indeed somewhat of an open question. It's closed with respect to computable function theory, but meaning/semantics/etc not equally well closed.
Comment: To me a basic problem with the Chinese room is that the things electronic computers manipulate (e.g., clocked voltage levels) do not have meanings, whereas the things the Chinese room manipulates (symbols) do have meanings, so there's a fundamental semantic difference between computers and the Chinese room. Searle believes there's no difference. I'm not saying correcting his error shows how a computer could have semantic content, but it has to be good to get a better understanding of the machine. (And it makes the Chinese room thought experiment irrelevant to the quest for machine semantics.)
Comment: @Roddus please see second edit above for reply to your comment.
Answer: I believe that Searle, like almost everyone in computing agrees fully with Turing's definition of mechanical computation. By "computer" Searle is speaking to any mechanical computational device (think Enigma machine and other "computers" that would destroy that dumb apple commercial if they saw it) that has a very simple function. While "manipulates formal symbols" isn't the best wording it is definitely not wrong; as a software engineer who took CIS at university I can't disagree with the simplification; in fact on a subtle level the recognition of base level symbols is quite astute on Searle's part (eg. low level vs high level programming languages, lex vs parse, etc)
I believe that in general Searle idea of "a computer" is looser and would include all things that would be considered Turing machines. From the school of names perspective using term "computer" as the inclusive term would be much easier but to would require the explanatory statement in the late 90s
Comment: I agree that Turing machines (TMs) manipulate formal symbols and that Searle says electronic digital computers are universal Turing machines. Like TMs, the Chinese room manipulates symbols, and Searle (the CPU) does not know what they mean, thus the room has no semantics (that's the argument). The symbols do have meanings (semantics); Searle just doesn't know what they are. But the things electronic computers process (e.g. clocked voltage levels) to not have meanings, so the Chinese room in this way does not mirror the electronic computer. Computers don't process things that have meanings.
Answer: To obtain an answer, one must first make a distinction between a "computer" and its underlying "implementation." Let me use two examples to make this clear.
<code>"Computer"     "Implementation"
</code>
IBM 370 ------------ transistors
Human brain------- neurons
Both, IBM 370 and a Human brain are capable of manipulating symbols, so it's clear that a "computer" is capable of manipulating symbols, whereas, an "implementation" is not.  Therefore, it is sensible, to define a computer as a symbol-manipulating device. As to what was Searle's purpose for doing so, I would guess that it lets the reader know that when he uses the term "computer," he means its capability, not its implementation.
Comment: Can you please point me to any peer-reviewed evidence that neurons act like transistors in a digital computer?
Comment: The question of whether human brains internally process sensory symbols (symbols received from biological sensory apparatus) is in fairly wide dispute isn't it? There seems to be real problems with concepts - symbol, computation, information. Is there general agreement about how a symbol (in Turing's 1936 sense of what human computers (clerks) write down on pieces of paper) is realized inside an animal brain?
Answer: Thanks John. When you say:
1. SYMBOLS. "...for concreteness, let's please do away with this unnecessarily vague "voltage level" terminology, which you've used here and in preceding comments above. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit#Physical_representation for the correspondence between bits and voltage levels. We're talking about Searle's "symbols" (sequences of bits), regardless of their physical representation, which simply happens to be voltage levels in electronic digital computers."
I disagree about bits. To talk of a sequence of bits is to use a computational abstraction. I see the physical representation itself as the key to understanding the semantics of the machine (in Searle's sense of semantics – i.e., intentionality). You could take this further and say that computation presupposes an extrinsic semantics (and that the concept of computation needs to be abandoned before trying to understand intrinsic semantics).
It seems important to take what john Searle does as the CPU in the Chinese room, and then say, OK what is the exact equivalent in an actual electronic digital computer? Not in an abstract machine, not in a Turing machine, but in the actual piece of hardware on a desk.
In the Chinese room, cards inscribed with Chinese ideograms drop through the slot in the door. Unknown to Searle these are sensible Chinese questions (he knows no Chinese). He perceives the shapes inscribed on the cards, and manipulates the cards on the basis of the shapes (presumably the rule book - the program - contains examples of the shapes, but Searle also says  the rules describe the shapes). Searle reacts to the shape. But unknown to Searle, a meaning has been assigned to the shape by people outside the room. Searle has no access to the meaning, but only to the shape.
The way external people assign a meaning to a shape is to first perceive the shape then go through a mental process of assigning meaning (learning the meaning, and there's more than one way to do this). This learning can be regarded as creating instances of a 2-term relation. One term is the shape, the other the meaning.
So, what's the exact equivalent in the electronic digital computer, if the Chinese room accurately reflects the essentials of the computer? The CPU receives clocked voltage levels. Unknown to the CPU, the clocked voltage levels have been assigned meanings by people outside the computer.
Well, of course this is ridiculous. No such meanings have been assigned, nor could they ever be.  External people can perceive shapes and assign meanings to them (thus creating instances of the 2-term relation), but humans are biologically incapable of perceiving clocked voltage levels, so cannot assign meanings to them. Cannot create instances of the 2-term relation, the first term of which would be the clocked voltage level.
Hence, the Chinese room does not - semantically speaking – accurately reflect what happens with computers.  Semantics is the whole point of the CRA. Searle has failed to properly understand computer processing from the semantic perspective.
This, above, is just a starting point for a detailed comparative examination of the Chinese room verses electronic computers. ( I think various other things are wrong with the Chinese room, too.)
2. MEANING. You say "As for Searle and his Chinese Room conclusions, you'd need to compare and contrast "meaning" with respect to computers, versus "meaning" with respect to consciousness. But only the former is well-enough-defined for any rigorous comparison."
The history of AI has  also been a history of re-defining mental terms to make it seem as though computers have mental properties (when they don't, at least not when running the proffered programs).  Minsky was one of the masters of the fine art of academic re-definition in order to get students and funding. In his incredibly influential early book, Semantic Information Processing (he and his graduate students were contributors) the programs he presented have zero semantic content. He even (with wonderful spin) indicates this: "...one cannot help being astonished at how far they [the programs in the book] did get with their feeble semantic endowment." They actually had zero semantic endowment.
I agree that a severe problem is that the mind is not understood, the higher-level functions of the brain are not understood. Maybe re-defining mental terms using Computer Science terminology (so the re-defined concepts are capable of being realized in a computer) seems the only option. But to rebut the CRA (which is the goal of really carefully examining the Chinese room) the attempted rebuttal needs to use the concepts Searle uses in his arguments and in his descriptions of the room. Appeals to a definition of meaning that Searle does not use is appropriate. The least needed is a convincing translation of his meaning into a Computer Science one (which would be a reduction of meaning in Searle's sense to meaning in the Computer Science sense).
3. DEFINITION OF COMPUTER. You say, "Whether or not his argument's conclusive is maybe debatable, but his definition of "computer" is entirely adequate."
Searle defines the computer as a universal Turing machine. However, a Turing machine processes things that have extrinsic meanings (0,1, the various shapes reacted to by the universal machine as described in Turing's 1936 paper), but electronic computers don't. The things electronic computers process don't have any semantics. That's the key point. Turing machines are said to be purely computational entities. Computation presupposes an extrinsic semantics. Electronic computers, in the sense of processing things that lack an extrinsic semantics, are hence not computational. If this (really radical) view is adopted, then it probably has relevance to the validity or soundness of the Chinese room argument.
4. SYMBOL MANIPULATION. You say: "Any further argument would have to discuss the ultimate capabilities of "symbol manipulation" -- just how far can that take you? And that's indeed somewhat of an open question."
I claim that electronic computers don't process symbols in Searle's sense of "symbol".  If this is right, then the idea of symbol manipulation  (in Searle's sense of symbol manipulation, which is the Turing machine sense) is inadequate for fully understanding what computers do and could do.
From the start of the Computer Age, electronic computers have been understood using the concepts of computation (hence the name of the device). But what if these concepts are not adequate when it comes to trying to understand how an electronic computer (so named) could think?  What if thinking is fundamentally  non-computational? And what if, when the electronic computer is understood with different concepts, it becomes clear how a computer could perform the needed non-computational operations of intelligence?
In asking the question "Does it make sense to define a computer as a symbol-manipulating device?", I was asking whether Searle was trying to force down our throats the (false) idea that electronic computers processes objects that have an extrinsic semantics. These objects being symbols is Searle's sense of "symbol". That computers manipulate symbols and only symbols (in Searle's sense of "symbol")  is a premiss of various versions of the CRA. By defining computers as symbol-manipulating devices, he seems to be trying to  prevent any discussion of the question: Well, do computers process symbols (in Searle's sense of "symbol")? If they don't, then a CRA premiss is false and the argument is unsound.
Comment: I'm not quite sure what your "thesis statement" is here. When you say, **"I disagree about bits. To talk of a sequence of bits is to use a computational abstraction. I see the physical representation itself as the key to understanding the semantics of the machine"**, that sounds to me like you're attributing some kind of "qualia" to the electronic physical representation. In that case, your subsequent discussion is entirely outside my wheelhouse. My answer's intent (if you'll forgive the expresssion:) was entirely textbook conventional, i.e., the theory of computation with respect to bits.
Comment: By the way, your response above doesn't address my suggestion about Scott domains. Constructing a domain might not tell you want a meaning **>>is<<**, per se. But it does, very rigorously and very formally, tell you how meanings are related. So if the relationships are what's elementary and foundational, then you might want to study that stuff. Also, I suggested domain theory and denotational semantics with respect to the lambda calculus, which I mentioned with respect to syntax because we're talking about "symbol manipulation".  See next comment...
Comment: ...continued from previous comment. But if "symbol manipulation" isn't really your principal syntactic concern, then you might also want to take a look at "axiomatic semantics" and/or "operational semantics". These might be more relevant than "denotational semantics" if the lambda calculus isn't a good model of syntax for your purposes. For these two other kinds of semantics, the syntax model might more closely be the "primitive recursive functions", which are kind of like the computable version of "peano arithmetic". (google all the "quoted" stuff for more info)
Comment: Thanks, I'll have a look at denotation semantics, axiomatic semantics, etc. It's been a while since I last looked at these, but from memory, I think the term "semantics" was used in specific ways that varied from Searle's  mental sense of semantic content, intentionality, aboutness. But I'll review the topics.
Comment: Yeah, it's "...used in specific ways that varies from Searle's mental sense of semantic content".  But that's pretty much the best that's been done (at least as far as I know) with respect to computer semantics. But recall I mentioned **relationships**. In that sense, if you can find a way to impose relationships on Searle's sense of semantic elements, you may be able to construct a domain satisfying those relationships. And then the corresponding computer syntax "means" something that's isomorphic (relationship-wise, ie, category-theoretic functor) to whatever it is that Searle means.
Comment: Searle says the semantics of the symbol is the meaning of the shape conferred by external observers. For minds, he talks about intentionality. He says since computers can never input the meaning of the input symbol (only ever its shape) it can never possess intentionality. Well! So intentionality derives from meanings of input symbols (which meanings doggedly remain outside of the machine and inside the brains of observers)? Why? Why should intentionality be acquired by coagulating symbolic meaning? Do human brains get intentionality by internally coagulating external symbolic meaning?
Answer: As you say, the difference between extrinsic (observer-based) and intrinsic (subjective) symbol-manipulation semantics is key to the Chinese Room argument (CRA) (cf. the symbol grounding problem).
However, I don't see that the abstract-vs-physical distinction between computation theory and physical computing devices addresses this issue directly.
Computation theory is just another mathematical model, like calculus or geometry.
Finding logical "0, 1" symbols in a physical computer is no different than finding straight lines and 90-degree angles in buildings.
If we believe that the abstract, mathematically based theories of engineering truly keep skyscrapers from falling and planes in the air, then the dancing voltages in my bank's computer also truly represent the logical "balance" of my logical "checking account". Physical computers "manipulate symbols" to the same degree that buildings "obey statics" and planes, "aerodynamics".
Fortunately, the distinction between idealized math and the real world is not needed to fully understand the CRA. Because it is grounded by Turing machine (TM) theory, the CRA's analysis can be much less esoteric and much more precise and objective.
The CRA expertly focuses everyone's attention on the wrong symbols: the Chinese inputs and outputs. Like a magician, Searle makes you ignore the elephant in the Chinese Room: the program.
It, too, is a symbolic input to the Searle-computer. (He also hopes you'll miss the fact that it's in English!)
The program (aka, the rule book) is the key symbolic input because it alone dictates how the Chinese symbols are processed.
The only reason the Searle-computer can (and must) process the Chinese symbols purely formally is because he also has the program-rule symbols, which he can (and must) interpret non-formally.
As a universal TM, the Searle-computer's main responsibility centers on the program itself.
Searle directs everyone's attention solely to himself and the Chinese symbols, yet he is wholly superfluous to their computation!
The Searle-computer and its program input could--and should--both be completely removed from consideration.
Replace it by a direct, non-programmable implementation of the program and the room would function identically. Hence, Searle's claim that the room processes the Chinese symbols purely formally (as opposed to just its Searle-CPU) is totally unfounded because he fails to account for the program's own computation (whose existence is irrefutably explained by Turing machine theory).
The degree to which the program's computation interprets the Chinese semantically (or not) remains undetermined. Hence, the CRA establishes absolutely nothing about the semantics in the room regarding the Chinese symbols.
References: Syntax vs. semantics, chineseroom.info
Answer: OK for Phil-132, I'm not sure I understand all the points, but this is what I think's going on in the Chinese Room. There are two separate symbol-processing systems: (1) the system that processes the Chinese symbols that enter the room from outside, and (2) the system that processes the symbols that compose the program. The room also have a set of basic operations (like the Turing machine's Scan, Print, Erase, Left and Right). In an actual computer, these are built into the hardware. In the Chinese room, they come from Searle understanding what the program symbols mean.
Program symbols define the sequence of these simple operations once the program begins to execute. The simple operations then manipulate the Chinese symbols (and do other things). The program can be replaced by wiring. In this case the sequence of simple operations are not defined by program symbols, but by the wiring. But the "program-as-wiring" still has to be able to treat different Chinese input symbols in different ways. So how is it going to do this? Somehow the shapes of all possible Chinese symbols have to be built into the wiring. But the only way to do this is for the wiring to contain examples of Chinese symbols (which examples can then be matched by the wiring against the ones that come into the room from outside).
So the wiring has to contain symbols. Even though the simple operations can be executed by wiring instead of program symbols, there must still be literals, there must still be examples of all possible Chinese symbols, that the simple operations can use to match against the actual Chinese ones that arrive as input.
This matching process conducted by the wiring is purely formal because all it does is compare the shapes of the pre-existing example Chinese symbols to the shapes of the ones that enter the room as input. "Getting rid of the program" only gets rid of the program symbols that trigger simple operations. It doesn't get rid of the literals contained in the program. So for the program line: IF INPUT = "A" THEN GO DO , getting rid of the program gets rid of: IF INPUT = "" THEN GO DO , but it doesn't get rid of A.
Comment: Mostly agree, but reverse the systems: [1st Searle-UTM, program, Chinese(formal-only)] instantiates -> [2nd TM, Chinese(formal, etc)]. Removing 1st removes the distracting "UTM vs Chinese" purely formal relationship. Yes, 2nd TM _also_ needs formal ID of the Chinese. But then it can go further. TM with a "horse" symbol could associate it with "big mammal...". TM can also learn, changing behaviors over time. UTMs cannot do such things because they are specialized _solely_ for "universal programmability" (rule execution). Hence, UTMs must processes their nominal inputs (Chinese) only formally.


Icons and illustrations in GIMP without jagged edges?

Question: I usually create my icons and illustrations using GIMP. I'm sure everyone who uses GIMP knows that it pixelizes the images so when you get shapes that curve or are round, the edges appear jagged. I concocted a theory that, if I create these icons/illustrations at a high resolution (say 5000px +) that the jagged edges will appear less? is there some merit to this theory or am I just full of it? I would like to, finally, put this doubt to rest and to know the truth from someone who really knows
Comment: I use Gimp and no, the round edges are not jagged, when seen at nominal resolution. If I go pixel-peeping, I can see the anti-aliasing pixels, but this doesn't mean the edges are jagged. OTOH I see plenty of tutorials out there that don't handle edges properly so they appear jagged, but this can normally be avoided using the proper techniques. Maybe  you could post an example picture so that we can agree on the jaggedness??
Comment: I uploaded an example image there with my original post. You can see where there are smooth areas but there are some not so smooth.
Comment: There are indeed places where the anti-aliasing is damaged: (1046, 422) or (1184,303) for instance, but how did it happen? If I re-create the black ring by bucket-filling a selection obtained from a path or from an Ellipse select, I get something much better...
Comment: Actually I did use the Ellipse Select Tool from GIMP's toolbox to get the shape.
Comment: Strange because I get much better results wit the same tool... See http://i.imgur.com/HMLASs7.png (your image on top, the result of subtracting and inned circle selection from the outer circle selection at the bottom)
Answer: It has to pixelize because the screen is made out of discrete pixels. To combat this is anti-aliases the image. Now there are many ways to do anti-aliasing. In essence you have a trade-of between ringing (to sharp) and blurring, and implementation factors such as speed memory consumption etc.
Now, there is some individual variation as to what anti-aliasing strategy you consider making a good result. It result is also affected by the display your using your mood, ambient color of the room, color calibration and what you were doing before you looked at the icon.
Now is it possible the rendering a big icon anti-aliases better? Yes, its possible. The typical vector graphics rasterizer is optimized for speed. They also often have a conflation issue (bug) that is caused by using coverage computation as alpha source and then alpha composing the image.

Image 1: Art optimized done in Illustrator (left), and linear Lanczos filtered (right)* see more discussion about this here.
This is a trade of however, you need to know what your doing and you lose control of the pixel values. So at extremely small scales it starts to work badly. Many icons have this property so it is not a universally good strategy for all cases.
Answer: If you design your icon or illustration or whatever it is at 5000 pixels and view it at 5000 pixels then you will have smoother curves, lines etc. Yes.
But. If you, for example, need a 32x32 pixel icon, design it at 5000x5000 pixels then reduce it in size to 32x32 pixels (or simply view it at 32x32 pixels) then the result will most likely be worse than if you had designed it at 32x32 pixels—Because you're relying on something else to do the reduction and decide what pixels fall where on the new pixel grid.
If you're intended output size is large then working even larger isn't really a problem but at small icon sizes it's best to have complete control over each pixel rather than letting some resizing algorithm decide what goes where.
Comment: That makes sense, I really prefer creating my icons at larger sizes.


What are signs of achieving Master strength?

Question: Although even Masters can play very badly at times, especially against other Masters, and apart from ELO ratings, how to you get the feeling that you are definitely of "Master" strength, and no longer of "Expert" strength?
Comment: When your (USCF) rating exceeds 2200?
Answer: If a player is truly stronger than you independent of his current form, he is able to outplay you even if you don't overlook a single important tactic. If he is in bad form he will probably overlook tactics himself and let you back into the game, but you will still be outplayed in the stretches between his little blunders.
Once you don't have this feeling anymore of drifting into trouble without knowing why when playing against master players, and once you are able to just outplay weaker players by hand, you can be pretty sure that you have reached a master's level of understanding. Your Elo should follow suit.
Answer: You get a sense you are master strength when you are playing over GM games and can actually understand the reason behind the majority of their moves as well as being able to predict a large number of them. When playing against master level players you don't feel outclassed and feel like they aren't doing anything you wouldnt expect. Lastly you don't have any huge weaknesses in your game. You might be weaker in some areas but overall your opening, middlegame, and endgame are all mostly strong.
Comment: Good answer, but I doubt about the last part: *Lastly you don't have any huge weaknesses in your game.* : It is precisely when I reached Master level that I started to appreciate all the huge weaknesses in my openings, middlegames and endgames...
Comment: It's all relative. I'm talking in the context of people around 2000-2200.
Answer: The so called 'Master Strength' that you are talking about is achieved through a long period of practice. By practice, I don't just mean games, but tactical puzzles that help improve strategy and skill. I hope that I managed to answer your question.
Answer: Games are lost in two ways; by outright errors, which lose immediately, and by "slack" (suboptimal) moves, which cause your position to erode over time.
Most "good" games (the ones free of obvious errors) are races. E.g. races to attack each others' kings or to queen your pawns. A better player, by definition, will win most races. A weaker player will lose a move here and there, play a "good" (solid) game, and still lose.
You are a master when you can keep up (win some races, draw most others) with masters. You also be able to edge out experts in most races, except on a bad day.


.NET framework error 0xc000007b when installing UDK

Question: I'm trying to install UDK, but I get the following error:
The application was unable to start correctly (0xc000007b). Click OK to close the application.
I tried re-installing .NET Framework 4 and MSVC++ Redistributable 2010 x64 with a separate uninstaller, but I still get the same error.
I have had this problem both before and after reinstalling Windows 7 x64. I think it might be because UDK is 32-bit and everything else is 64-bit, but there shouldn't be any errors with backwards compatibility.
How do I fix this?
Comment: Install the x64 version of UDK.  If all else fails install the x86 version of all the required stuff.
Answer: The error code would seem to indicate a DLL is missing.  If it is 32 bit, have you installed the MSVC++ Redist 2010 x86?


What should a woman think about during candle lighting?

Question: I often see women closing their eyes and concentrating after lighting Shabbos or Yom Tov candles. I was told that this is an auspicious time to pray. I would like to know if any commentators discuss exactly what a woman should or shouldn't pray for at that time and if there are any text which should be recited.
Comment: related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/43448/candle-lighting
Answer: The following is from Aish:

After the recitation, many take special time to thank God for the many blessings of health, prosperity, and joy in their lives. There is also a special prayer composed by women, for women, which many include at this time:

May it be Your will, Lord my God and God of my fathers, to be gracious to me (and to my spouse, children, parents) and to all my family; grant us and all Israel good and long life; remember us for good and blessing; consider us for salvation and compassion; bless us with great blessings; make our household complete, crowning our home with the feeling of Your Divine Presence dwelling among us.
Make me worthy to raise learned children and grandchildren, who are wise and understanding, who love and fear God, people of truth, holy and attached to God, who will dazzle the world with Torah and goodness and service of God. Please hear our prayers, in the merit of our matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, and ensure that the glow of our lives will never be dimmed. Show us the glow of Your face and we will be saved. Amen.

It is a time to talk to God. So express anything that you wish, and ask for all that you desire. He wants to hear your prayers.
Answer: During candle lighting she should be thinking about fulfilling the Mitzva of honouring the Shabbat by creating a brighter room.
After she has extinguished the match, covered her eyes, made the Bracha and then looked at the candles and accepted Shabbat, she may want to use this auspicious time to pray for whatever she feels needs to be prayed for.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in 75:2 mentions that it's a good time to pray for help with educating children.

וְאִשָּׁה קְשַׁת רוּחַ בְּגִדּוּל בָּנִים אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ כְּלָל, סְגֻלָּה שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְאַחַר הַדְלָקַת הַנֵּרוֹת, הַהַפְטָרָה שֶׁל יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. וְטוֹב שֶׁתָּבִין מַה שֶּׁהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת, וְתֹאמַר בְּכַוָּנָה.

After doing any Mitzva one has created an auspicious time, as far example after Birkat haMazon one prays for multiple things, in the various HaRachaman requests.
Answer: I think that you are confusing two things. While my wife does say something after saying the bracha (I will get that and add it to the answer), closing the eyes is not part of concentrating or saying something other than the bracha.
There is another reason for a woman to close her eyes at the lighting of the candles for Shabbos. Technically, she should first say the bracha and then light the candles. However, once she has said the bracha, she has accepted Shabbos and is forbidden to light the candles. Thus, she lights the candle, put the match or lighting device away, closes her eyes, says the bracha, and then opens them to accept the "new" light after the bracha.
Note that she does not close her eyes until after she has extinguished the match or other lighting device. She does not close her eyes while lighting the candles.
Again technically, she would be allowed to say the bracha on Yom Tov and then light, since one can light from an existing flame. However, for consistency and so that she could extinguish the match or put away the lighter, most women will act as they do on Shabbos.
I believe that Rav Soloveitchik reported that this was how his mother lit the candles on Yom Tov.
Comment: I don't see that this answers the question, which was "I would like to know if any commentators discuss exactly what a woman should or shouldn't pray for at that time and if there are any text which should be recited".
Comment: related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/20243/beracha-on-lighting-yom-tov-candles-before-or-after?rq=1
Comment: @msh210 I was pointing out that closing her eyes has nothing to do with concentrating or saying anything specifically. My wife does say something after candle lighting (after she opens her eyes having accepted shabbos). However, as I said, that has nothing to do with closing her eyes. I will add this comment to the answer.
Answer: The mother is presented with an opportunity to wholeheartedly daven for her children. The משנה ברורה רסג:ב writes:

"ראוי שתתפלל האשה אחר שתגמר ההדלקה והברכה שיתן לה הקדוש ברול הוא בנים זכרים מאירים בתורה"
"And it is fitting that the woman should daven after she finishes lighting that Hashem bless her with sons who will illuminate (the world) with (their) Torah".

Such is the gravity of the moment; she should ensure that she is aware of what she is saying and not just reciting the words without understanding their meaning ("וְטוֹב שֶׁתָּבִין מַה שֶּׁהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת, וְתֹאמַר בְּכַוָּנָה" - refer to קצור שלחן ערוך, עה:ב).
Thus, the שבת candles are not to be viewed as merely a ceremonial tradition that the mother performs each week, but rather it represents a very real chance to communicate with G-d and to pray for our children. As the זוהר perhaps best encapsulates:

"ואתתא בעיא בחדוה דלבא ורעותא לאדלקא בוצינא דשבת, דהא יקרא עלאה היא לה וזכו רב לגרמה למזכי לבנין קדישין דיהון בוצינא דעלמא באורייתא ובדחלתא, ויסגון שלמא בארעא, ויהיבת לבעלה אורכא דחיין, בגין כך בעיא לאזדהרא בה"
"A woman needs joy and desire in her heart when lighting the Shabbos candles, as it is a supreme honour for her, and merits holy children who light up the world with Torah and fear, increases peace on earth and gives a long life to her husband. She should therefore be very particular about this".


Can I cancel an Android update?

Question: My Motorola Ultra is running 4.4.4 and I've been holding off on upgrading to the next one since I don't want to lose any possibility of getting root. However, this morning when the notification popped up, I accidentally selected "Don't remind me, just update at this time", the time being noon tomorrow. When it tries to start the update, is there anyway I can stop it?
Answer: I've already found this hopeful answer:

I just spoke to Google directly. The Nexus 5 under settings, apps has
something called Google Play services. Not store. If you uncheck the
notification box in Google Play services and restart the phone the
notification for the Android system updates will stop in the
notification bar. Worked like a charm!
From: How do I skip an Android system update and stop its notifications?

Moreover, if your devise had been rooted, you should be able to install Disable Services and find the SystemUpdateService under Google Services Framework. Disable it.
As you have device with Android Kitkat please read also that article: https://www.droidmen.com/how-to-stop-downloading-of-android-os-update-in-android-phone/
It should work.
Comment: I've edited my answer - new useful link added
Comment: My question is not about disabling notifications. It is about whether or not I can cancel a scheduled application of a firmware update.
Comment: sorry for my misunderstanding. You can cancel it for choosing `... later` option. But look... stopping service like in the link doesn't stay forever, you can enabled it again at any disired time
Comment: Again, you misread what I wrote. I hit :later", but I had accidentally checked "don't remind me, just do it".
Comment: wait for installation time, I'm sure there would be option to re-think ;-)
Comment: I hope you are right.
Answer: It looks like there's no option to disable a in-progress update. Android upgrade is done by system ui. It will keep trying to download the incremental upgrade packages. After the download is finished, it will ask you to install the upgrade. And reboot upon your confirmation. You can decide not to install upgrade when it's prompting confirmation.

Can I cancel an Android update?


How do block explorers actually work?

Question: How do block explorers interface with a chain differently than full nodes? Would it be possible to integrate block explorer features into a full node implementation in the future?
Comment: Block explorers work on top of full nodes. They index all blocks and transactions and store it in a separate database suited for the explorer needs and serve that to some web application displaying the data.
Comment: I totally agree, it's an interesting question. I've build a block crawler a few years back, and all I can say that the _full_ in full node refers to full capability to do everything on the blockchain. A block explorer just queries the node for the information it needs and usually stores more data than a full node.
Comment: Ah, what format is that data stored in? How did your explorer retrieve it? Edit: either in the context of whatever chain you built for, or ethereum, i realize the question is possibly mixed
Comment: Thanks.  I was hoping for more of a resource/discussion on how blockexplorers are able to retrieve and return the granular transaction data they do which a node can't or currently does not. Actually surprised this fell flat.  Maybe it's something this is either universally known or universally unknown.  Maybe you can help me with the question formatting for a more successful outcome?  I still believe it's potentially valuable for this stack's knowledge base.
Comment: Re: Index all blocks...
Isn't that what a full node does, minus the ability to explore transactions on a granular level? A more technically detailed resource for understanding would be appreciated
Answer: Block explorers run instrumented EVMs, as opposed to the vanilla EVM that is run by a full node. If you want the same level of detail yourself, then you'll need to know how to create and instrument your own EVM.
A good place to start - which includes links to the relevant areas of code - would be this previous thread: Instrumenting EVM
Answer:
Would it be possible to integrate block explorer features into a full
  node implementation in the future?

Yes that would be definitely possible. It is not unlikely that some ethereum node implementations will add explorer features in near future. It would also be possible to run your own block explorer locally besides the node (https://github.com/etherparty/explorer). A good chunk of the block explorer functionality can be drawn from the RPC interface of a node. Also, the interface will be more extensive in the future, for example to allow receiving information on contract internal transactions. Parity has recently added a feature to trace these messages (https://github.com/ethcore/parity/wiki/JSONRPC-trace-module).

How do block explorers actually work?


Why is so much of InSight visible in this image?

Question: It seems really strange to me that there is so little visible of the surface in this image, it mostly appears to be the deck of InSight. Why is so little visible?
Comment: It's just a selfie.
Comment: Why is so much InSight in sight?!
Comment: There is very little of the surface visible because the robot is in the way. Not sure what else there is to say! If you want to take a picture of the surface you will have to point the camera in a different direction... Maybe you want to rephrase your question, i.e. what exactly do you consider strange?
Comment: @user2705196 I guess the OP is wondering why the decision was made to (a) have a camera facing this way, and (b) why use this camera for introductory photography. Personally I think the answer to both is fairly obvious but that doesn't mean it can't be given :)
Answer: That image was taken by the Instrument Deployment Camera (IDC). It's located on the arm. With the arm in stowed position, it's logical that a section of the deck is in view.
In other words, it's an engineering instrument, not a science instrument.
Comment: While the cameras primary intent is find the best spots to place the instruments, InSight reused Pheonix's hardware design to the extent that the arm still has the [digging scoop](http://spaceflight101.com/insight/insight-instruments/) the latter used to look for ice under the surface.  While not part of the primary mission, it leaves an opening for the camera to be used as a science instrument in the probable extended phase by having the arm attempt to dig a trench and imaging the results.
Answer: To add to Hobbes' answer: InSight hasn't unpacked yet for its stay!
There is a lot of equipment which was packaged on top of the deck for transport, which will be moved to their proper places over the next weeks.  The white tubing on the right and bottom edges of the picture is the robotic arm, to which this camera is attached to.  The arm's grapple is in the bottom center.  The metallic box on the left side is SEIS, which will be placed on the surface of the planet along with HP3.
There is a second camera (the ICC) below the deck, which would be unobstructed if not for a dust cover that has dust on it.  This camera was more affected than the IDC by dust kicked up during landing, because this camera is below deck versus the IDC which is above-deck.  You can make out a rock and a lander leg near the bottom of the image.

The next steps are to active the arm and use it to remove the dust covers of both cameras.  The ICC should give a nice panoramic view of the nearby terrain, unobstructed by the lander.  The IDC is on the arm and will be moved to various vantage points to survey the terrain and get close-up images of the nearby objects, unobstructed by the lander.
Comment: The lander has two colour cameras, it's not a false-colour image - but I think I saw that photo posted on Twitter with a comment saying it was processed to enhance the contrast of the ground.
Comment: The InSight website at NASA has a section titled "Raw Images" and another titled "Images".  The picture in my answer is a direct link to "Raw Images".  Any image processing should be minimal, if at all.  Both cameras are RGB color.  Both have dust covers on, although I doubt that's affecting the color.  The pictures are during Mars daytime, when the sky is orange; I think that's the greatest contributor to the color of the pictures.
Comment: I saw this photo just few hours after the lander's touchdown. I still have my doubt: is this actually the raw image (B&W or colorful?) originally from the lander or it was computer-processed before publicly disclosed?
Comment: Of course, every photograph is false-colour to a degree! Although some colour profiles are more equal than others...
Comment: Re: colours. There's probably a "calibration target", including for colour, on the probe somewhere. Compare https://space.stackexchange.com/q/2200/10450


Whats an easy way of installing a VPN client on my webhost?

Question: I have a webhosting account in the UK (Linux)
Is it possible to install some sort of a web app that will allow me to use Windows VPN client to connect and use my server's IP address as a VPN server?
Thanks,
Comment: possible duplicate of [Whats an easy way of installing a VPN client on my webhost?](http://serverfault.com/questions/168636/whats-an-easy-way-of-installing-a-vpn-client-on-my-webhost)
Answer: Take a look at logmein.com's hamachi vpn solution, it might be more easy to get going than an installation of OpenVPN (however I will say, if you're allowed to install apps, OpenVPN is not hard to get configured and running, probably a 4 hours learning curve to have something going if you're reasonably proficient with everything).
However if you just have a web hosting account, then there's virtually no way they are going to allow you access to the file system (this would be a gross security violation since most web hosting configurations are shared by multiple clients).
In any case, if you want VPN, you'll have to have access to the server, not just a web container on a shared server.
If you just want file access then use an FTP client, you can also use windows explorer to access an FTP site by adding it as a network place, then it just acts like an attached drive.
Answer: OpenVPN comes to mind, though I have no idea what you mean by "installing some sort of webapp." If you are on shared hosting you will not be able to do this in all likelihood. If you have a VPS this shouldn't be a problem.


Formalizing "surprising, yet inevitable"

Question: My music teacher told me that one property of great music is that it is both surprising and inevitable - you don't expect something, but looking back you see that it has been carefully prepared for.  Is there a more formal understanding of this principle or a source of examples with explanations? And how do I deliberately use it in composition?
Comment: My first thought on this is that anyone who could effectively answer these questions would already have a Grammy or five and might be too busy on tour or living it up somewhere to post here.
Comment: i think this is a universal principle in any art form that takes place over time (literature, music, plays, movies, etc). if it always met expectations that would be boring. if it is too strange to grasp that would be "too artsy" for most audiences. finding this balance is a pursuit that only the best ever achieve. good luck. please share if you figure it out.
Comment: I don't know the original source of the quote, but I've heard it said that a common attribute of "great movies" is that the movie itself teaches the audience how to watch it. Likewise, "great music" teaches the audience how to listen to it. Not sure if the same principle also applies to "great literature", "great visual art", etc, but it probably does. Just my subjective opinion, of course.
Comment: Ah, holy grail...
Comment: Often (waltz,  bebop, 12-tone,  funk, ...) a song or a style is "great" because it's dramatically different from everything preceding it.  My favorite example is Prelude a l'apres-midi d'une Faune .
Answer: One approach may be found in the Implication-Realization Model by Leonard Meyer and Eugene Narmour.
In short, there are five proposed governing principles that suggest what listeners expect from a given musical excerpt. How we perceive the music is then based on either the attainment or the denial of the expected events.
In other words, a musical excerpt implies some continuation, and our cognitive response depends upon whether the subsequent music ever realized those implications.
You may be interested in Leonard B. Meyer's book Emotion and Meaning in Music. See also What causes notes to appear to follow a progression of melodic expectations? How does this work?
For me personally, the music of Samuel Barber is my favorite example of what you describe. So often I expect his melodic lines to do one thing, but when he does something different, I realize his choice was better than mine. If this is the type of music you're interested in, check out his Violin Concerto and his Essays for Orchestra.
Answer: I'm a big fan of Beethoven's symphonies, and I think he was a master of this.
I listened to his 9th symphony (through the free service by the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra's website) like a dozen times in the last few years and this symphony really digs deep into this principle.  After the first three movements, there's a time when the low strings seem to be having a conversation, and they "bring up" (as in conversation) little distinctive snippets of the first three movements.  Then they seem to propose an alternative: the primitive melody of the final movement, the "ode to joy" melody.
Other stuff happens, then finally the big chorus arrives.  Beethoven intentionally makes the entrance messy, in the middle of another measure.  I would say this was to show how his big chorus is not just different from the other themes, but has defeated or dominated over and above the other themes like a ship moving through ocean waves.
The "ode to joy" melody of the big chorus had been signaled in advance by the low strings, but there was no way for the audience to know in how many ways the composer would be working, turning, ornamenting, re-engineering, beautifying, amplifying (etc) that theme... unless they remembered what Beethoven was capable of and said to themselves, "I bet that little melody is gonna turn into something great."


Is it more common for the main melody to be in the higher part and the accompaniment in the lower part? If so, why?

Question: I have noticed in my own songs and in general that the main melody of songs in in the high part and the accompaniment is in the lower part. Why? Is there a biological or theoretical reason for why this configuration is preferred?
Comment: Why is it harder to hear them?
Comment: Good question: I don't know. I just notice that when a jazz group plays, the guitar/singer/saxophone may solo with everyone else playing, but when the bassist steps forward for the most part everyone else shuts up.
Comment: Related question, if not quite a duplicate: [Are the highest pitches always the easiest to hear in a musical texture?](http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/22661/are-the-highest-pitches-always-the-easiest-to-hear-in-a-musical-texture)
Comment: This may be related to the fact that it's harder to hear soloing by lower register instruments (e.g. bass), so the upper register instruments usually pause or back off to allow the lower instruments' solos to be heard.
Comment: @Daniel A similar phenomena occurs in upper registers if the are too high. They become screechy and unpleasant.
Answer: That's not the case "in general".  Take a look at Simon&Garfunkel, or typical polyphonic passages in Beatles songs.  Also for barbershop, the melody tends to be in "lead" which is below the "tenor" voice.
Now the counterexamples are actually a good clue for figuring out the rule: in those examples, the higher counter melodies are typically sung in light head voice or falsetto.  Which means that they have considerably fewer harmonics than the leading chest voice.  So in this case, even though the fundamental of the leading voice is below that of the counter, its harmonics dominate more of the higher spectrum.
Now harmonics are what distinguishes various sound qualities and, in particularly, the vowel formants in speech.  So human hearing is quite adapted to hearing and distinguishing slight variations in the high pitches corresponding to harmonics of the normal speaking voice.
Answer: The natural tendency of a western-music-familiar listener is to hear the highest note in an arrangement as the melody note.  Nobody tells people to hear it as such, they just do.  Thus, for many years it was a standard "rule" for a big band arranger writing horn charts and such to put the main melody in the top voice.  This is of course more a convention than a rule, and you can find countless examples where it is not followed.
A great example of this is in SATB chorus:  the altos and baritones/basses rarely get the lead melody line, which instead goes to the sopranos and tenors.  Sopranos and tenors are just that much better at projecting to the back of the hall than the altos and basses.
Of course it's a time-honored arrangement method for orchestra to have the first violin state a melodic motif, then "pass it around" to the other, lower-register instruments. Counter-melodies can weave in and out of the main melody, moving into the top voice to gain momentary emphasis, etc.
SO, the convention of putting the melody in the highest voice is primarily born from the very real experience of NOT doing it and finding your intended perceived primary melody disappearing from aural view.


How to deal with two ISBN from two different countries?

Question: Since the book I am working on will be published in two different countries, it has two ISBN. The tricky question here is this: must both the ISBN barcode be placed onto the back cover of the book? One of the ISBN is from U.S and seems like it is a must to have a barcode on the cover. But having two barcodes is just a little confusing. Please give some advice. Thanks!
Comment: Why do you need two ISBNs to publish the same book in two countries? If you're using two different publishers, you need two ISBNs, one for each publisher. If you are publishing different versions in each country--different text, different language, different trim size, different format (e.g. trade paperback vs mass market paperback)--you need two ISBNs, one for each version. Otherwise, why do you need two ISBNs?
Comment: ISBN means **International** Standard Book Number. The ISBN consists of a number for the country that the publisher is registered in, a number for the publisher (among all the other publishers in that country), and a number for the book (by that publisher). A publisher publishing internationally still is the same publisher, so the number for the country and publishing house do not change. Since the book is also the same, that number does not change either. So: one single ISBN for one individual book.
Comment: Have you been told you'll need two ISBNs, or are you assuming that different countries = different ISBNs?  If you've been told this, can you [edit] to add some info about who told you (publisher? editor? some guy at Starbucks? :-) ) and, if you know, the reason.  Generally, as the others said, it's one book + one ISBN.
Comment: What about bilingual books? One book with both English and Spanish translation within it?
Answer: I agree with what the commenters have already said (and think some of them should be turned into answers), so assume this is building upon their replies. As they said, you usually only have one ISBN per book, only changing ISBNs if something substantial changes about the book. If the publisher changes, if the size changes, or if it changes from hardcover to paperback to ebook, then you'd get a new ISBN each time. Each ISBN comes with its own barcode.
Now, there's a few different points that might be leading to this confusion for you.
1) There are two different kinds of ISBNs. Grab a book published around 2006 and flip to the inside front cover. You'll likely see two ISBNs, one with 10 digits (beginning with 0) and one with 13 digits (beginning with 978). This is because the organization that standardizes ISBNs begun with a 10-digit ISBN and then switched to a 13-digit one in 2007, but not all publishers have transitioned to only using the 13-digit one.

Behold my extremely terrible photography. This book is a first-edition hardcover copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, published in 2007. Note the two ISBNs.
Although two ISBNs are listed, both refer to the same book. Consider them to be different versions of the same number, in the way that "1+1" and "2" are different versions of the same number. Also note that there is only one barcode on the back of the book.
2) Many publishers will print different editions of their books for the different countries they print in, with translations for each language. Each edition will usually have different cover art to distinguish it, and is given different ISBNs if they're in different languages. Patrick Rothfuss's books have been published in multiple languages and so each new language edition has a new ISBN.
However, note that each book is complete in and of itself. Each book will only have one ISBN. Therefore, if your book needs to be published in two different languages, each language will have its own ISBN, but one book would only have one ISBN on the front cover. It wouldn't make any sense to put the ISBN referring to the French edition and the ISBN referring to the English edition on the English book. Thus, the English book would only have one ISBN: the one referring specifically to that translation of the book.
Answer: I have seen many times a sticker ISBN added over the original one for different countries a bit like the replica stick-on some chain bookstores use.
I have also often seen it in US prints sold in the UK and Europe with the local denomination. I gather that's what you meant, two different currencies needing two ISBNs.
In your case the U.S. publisher will have an ISBN print as part of the cover, and the other country England, or India for instance will have a sticker covering it.


How do Lightsabers turn off and on?

Question: From the Star Wars movies it appears that whether a lightsaber "ignites" is dependent on the circumstance but is there an explanation for how they turn on (i.e. a simple switch on the side or through the Force)?
Comment: With a *snap-hiss*.
Comment: Force shouldn't be involved because General Grievous used to use it..
Answer: It is activated by a switch.
Directly from the script for A New Hope

Ben hands Luke the saber.
LUKE What is it?
BEN Your fathers lightsaber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster.
Luke pushes a button on the handle. A long beam shoots out  about four feet and flickers there. The light plays across the ceiling.

It can be noted that this is immediately before Luke has even ever heard of The Force, so it is highly unlikely that The Force is required in any way to activate the lightsaber. Additionally, General Grievous is able to wield four lightsabers simultaneously, and is not at all Force-Sensitive.
From the novelization of The Empire Strikes Back

The Wampa Ice Creature spread its black, hooked claws and lumbered toward the hanging youth . Suddenly the lightsaber, as if by magic, sprang to Luke's hand. Instantly, he depressed a colored button on the weapon, releasing a bladelike beam that quickly severed his icy bonds.
Comment: Yet, How does the lightsaber automatically turn off  when Jedi are killed or when characters loose their lightsabers?
Comment: @GhostKoi http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6094/why-do-lightsabers-turn-off-when-a-jedi-dies-or-drops-it
Comment: See [here](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/6094/5184) for the answer for that exact question.
Comment: Is there a Canon / Legends explanation?
Comment: @GhostKoi Not to my knowledge. If you'd like to try to get better answers on the other question, you can offer a bounty once you have some more rep.
Comment: Thank goodness Luke wasn't pointing that lightsaber at anything important when he pressed that switch.
Answer: It varies, and is completely up to the character who designs/builds the lightsaber.
The majority of lightsabers have some sort of external switch for activation, with said switch being a "dead-man's switch". As long as the switch is depressed, the blade remains activated. The switch itself - called an activation stud - could be anything from a lever or button to a plate.

Of course, if needed this switch can also be activated using the Force... in which case, the lightsaber would activate but then immediately de-activate after the switch is toggled. This technique was famously used by Mara Jade to kill Dequc, the brief leader of Black Nebula. Since she could not physically reach Dequc, she instead hid her lightsaber inside a statue and activated it from across the room while Dequc examined it:

However, there have also been examples of designs in Legends canon where the switch was internal, thereby requiring the Force to activate. These designs were rare, since although an internal switch is more secure, it requires constant focus in order to maintain the blade activation.
In addition, at least one lightsaber - that of Lord Hethrir - was built with NO activation switch at all, instead requiring the wielder to complete the circuit themselves through the Force:

The whining hum of Lord Hethrir's lightsaber filled the room, and the
  silver-gray light of the blade cast shadows on Tigris's empty hands.
  Tigris raised his head, to gaze in wonder as he always did at the
  radiance of Lord Hethrir's saber.
The blade vanished.
"Try once more," Lord Hethrir said, and gave the handle of the
  lightsaber to Tigris. The handle of the saber felt warm in Tigris's
  grip. The lightsaber was too large for Tigris's hands, but he clasped
  it as best he could.
He knew what Lord Hethrir wanted him to do.
The blade of Lord Hethrir's lightsaber could only be activated by the
  use of the Force. Hethrir would not accept anyone into his inner
  circles who could not complete the circuit and generate the blade.
Tigris tried, how he tried, to make a connection to the Force, to
  extend himself, to create the blade.
Comment: @Escoce I agree, but we can probably just assume that Vader used the Force to keep the switch pressed during those few seconds. Or maybe the de-activation process takes a few seconds to turn off the blade. Take your pick.
Comment: The only problem with the dead man's switch concept is the example of Darth Vader throwing his light saber at Luke during the empire strike back fight scene. I suppose one could also include a locked-on position, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
Comment: @Escoce No, one simply uses the force to keep the saber active.
Comment: @Escoce: there are examples of sabers using lockable activation switches, particular when being thrown around.  And also, during the heat of combat, a force user might not want to focus attention on having to keep the switch pressed, or maybe his/her hand slides around the hilt or even lets go, re-grips, etc, so having to always hold the switch could get tedious/distracting. Omegacron's idea that a dead-man deactivation might have a delay also has merit, as we've seen film/TV shots where slain/falling force users let go of their sabers and they do not deactivate immediately.

How do Lightsabers turn off and on?


Set 'From' address in Outlook on a per-message basis

Question: I'm trying to determine if it's possible in Outlook(2010 specifically) to select the from address on a per-message basis if the user has multiple valid SMTP addresses on their Exchange mailbox. This is one of those things that is apparently un-googleable. For bonus points, it would be awesome if you could set the default from address per-contact.
Comment: It seems like for meeting requests, you can change who it's from by deselecting every calendar except that one before choosing 'new meeting'. Maybe there's some equivalent for email?
Answer: In the message window, switch to the Options tab, then enable "From". This will add a "From" input above the "To" line. You can put any mailbox for which you have Send As permission.

(Picture is from this guide)
Comment: I'm not in front of that system at the moment. I have multiple addresses on one mailbox, not multiple mailboxes. Does that still work?
Comment: @JeffSacksteder: It will not. This answer relates to choosing an alternate "From" recipient object, but not choosing amongst the various SMTP addresses that might be assigned to that object.
Answer: In the web interface...

Start a new email
Click three dots menu and select 'Show From'
Right-click your name, select 'remove'
Type in the distribution group address you have rights to send as

It will then be a selection in the From drop down going forward.
Answer: It looks to me like the OP is asking to choose between multiple SMTP addresses assigned to an individual user's Exchange mailbox.
You cannot choose from the various SMTP (or other proxy types) set on the user's mailbox object in the Active Directory in Outlook. @Stephen Jennings describes how to choose a different recipient object to send "From", but the default SMTP address for the object you select  will be stamped on the outgoing message.
The only way to do what you want would be to create multiple recipient objects in the Directory, assign each the appropriate default "From" address, and grant the appropriate user "Send As" permission to them. Then the user can send "From" the appropriate recipient and the address stamped on the outgoing message will be as-expected.
I'd recommend creating Distribution Group objects for the alternate "From" addresses and making the user a member of the groups (as well as granting Send As permission on the groups to the user) so that they'll receive any replies sent to those addresses.
In general I try to never hand-specify alternate addresses (that is, add addresses not managed by policy) on Exchange recipients and to always use groups to facilitate "alternate" addresses for users. I do this for the reason above, amongst others.
Answer: The way I got around this was to set up the user with an another AD/Exchange account and then set the primary SMTP as your second/additional  address.
Then in your users original account open Outlook, go to Account Settings > Delegate Access and assign the new Exchange user permission of your Inbox. Add the From field in new messages and then flick between both addresses as needed.
Last part is shown here:
http://support.sherweb.com/Faqs/show/how-to-send-emails-from-multiple-from-addresses-in-outlook-2010
A bit long winded but handy if only needed for a few users.


What is kanji pronunciation used for?

Question: I don't understand the reason to learn Onyomi and Kunyomi of the kanji. Do they have any use besides reading out loud? Can't a person just learn the meaning and read?
Comment: How can you look up a word in a dictionary if you don't know how it's pronounced?
Comment: @oals well If I already new how it is pronounced the chances are I know its meaning. Though question was asked with the false assumption that the word's meaning can be understood from the kanjis' meanings alone.
Comment: @oals There are various dictionaries online for looking up a kanji based on its radicals. You could then, if it's a multi-kanji word, piece together several kanji into the word in question and use a translation service. (Useful if you are intent on not learning the pronunciation, or more realistically if you don't recognize a certain kanji.)
Comment: @nitro2k01 That method is a massive pain in the arse if you ask me. (Also, my question was a rhetorical one.)
Answer: 弥次郎兵衛 is a way of writing the word ヤジロベエ.  None of the kanji tell you what this word means.  The only way you can tell what it means is by recognizing the word.  (It refers to a kind of traditional Japanese toy that balances on a small point, for example in the shape of a dragonfly.)
What if someone's name is 良?  You can't call them Good.  That's not their name.
What if you see the kanji 百葉箱?  This word means "Stevenson screen", but unless you know the actual word the kanji represent, you're unlikely to understand.  What's a "hundred leaves box"?
What part of your body is the 盲腸?  How about the 虹彩?  The 喉仏?  The 網膜?  The 鎖骨? All of these kanji are used to represent words, and unless you can associate the kanji with those words, you'll have trouble figuring out what they mean.
It's true that you can often figure out an unfamiliar word from the kanji alone.  But kanji are used to write the Japanese language, and you won't get very far if you skip the actual step of associating the writing with the language itself.  That doesn't mean you have to sit around memorizing individual on and kun readings, but you need to be able to read words if you want to understand Japanese writing.
Comment: @WVrock How about 行く【いく】 and 行う【おこなう】? 覚える【おぼえる】 and 覚める【さめる】? 強い【つよい】, 強いて【しいて】, 強ち【あながち】, and 強か【したたか】?  似る【にる】 and 以って【もって】?  I think you might have some trouble with that approach.
Comment: Thanks for the answer. This was troubling me for some time. I get the importance of the onyomi now but every example you have given (except 良) is a jokugo. Does this mean that I can get away with just learning the onyomis and skipping  (or learning a selected few of) the kunyomis?
Comment: So the same thing happens with fukurigana. Without knowing the kunyomi there is no way to find out what it means. Thanks for the clarification.

What is kanji pronunciation used for?


Samsung tablet 2 10.1- why is the adaptor in two separate parts

Question: We have just purchased a Samsung galaxy tablet 10.1 and there are no directions for charging - so we put the adaptor together to plug into the wall and it does not come apart - why is it in two separate pieces and why can't we get it apart?
Thank you
Answer: It's to make it cheaper to manufacture in bulk. The part with the actual transformer in is the same for every country, and the other half (with the plug itself) is different for each country. Making the complicated part global means they don't have to redesign the whole transformer for each country, and the manufacturer can benefit from increased economies of scale, reducing the price.
Most transformers for today's gadgets follow the same design. In the drawer in front of me I have examples from Apple, Sennheiser, and Asus, as well as Samsung, all in two parts.
Usually, it is possible to take the two pieces apart again, it just needs a bit of a wiggle and some practice. This makes it easier to use another country's plug if you're travelling, but apart from that there's no reason to. If you can add a photo of the particular kind of adaptor you have, I can probably add instructions for how to take it apart.


Install a Tor relay on Windows with Tor Browser Bundle

Question: I can not install or configure a Tor relay.
I had Tor downloaded, installed several times on Windows XP.
There is no Vidalia in it or came with it.
The union button gives me no options like Vidalia used to do.
Answer: The Tor Browser Bundle which you is downloaded by default is configured as a client only. When you want to use it as a relay you can either edit the torrc or download a relay bundle. For the latter case there is a package which is configured as non-exit relay and one which is an exit.
Comment: as far as I can tell you can not run a relay if you are running windows which is a shame as that is what I want to do aswell as Johnny BeGood
The [download a relay bundle](https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html.en) link you provided by Jens Kubieziel♦ above dose not lead to anywhere to download a relay bundle?


What is the difference between 例子 and 榜样?

Question: If I'm trying to say someone is a good example I often hear 例子, however, I have also heard 榜样, which seems to make more sense to me based on the meaning of the characters. What is the difference between these two?
Comment: Well, 例子 can be either a good or a bad example (depends on the context), while 榜样 is usually used to describe a good model for others to learn from.
Answer: 榜样 is a model, specifically a person regarded as an excellent example of a certain quality.
Every year, the government announces

全国劳动模范 or 劳模 in short (people who excel in work) and 全国道德模范 (people who possess good
  moral values)

In a lot of companies, they have an honor called

模范带头人 (employees that come first in sales numbers, etc.)

Teachers use the word fairly often:

小明是我们(学习)的榜样。Xiao Ming set a good example for us.

An idiom:

榜样的力量是无穷的。If one sheep leaps over the ditch, all the rest will
  follow. (official translation)

例子 is a typical thing that can represent the whole kind.

举个例子 give an example

It's actually very easy to distinguish between the two words.
Definition of "example" (from the Dashboard widget on my Mac):

example |igˈzampəl| noun

a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule --> 例子 (neutral)
a person regarded in terms of their fitness to be imitated or the likelihood of their being imitated --> 榜样 (positive, and used to describe people
  only)
Comment: Nice answer! +1 Can you please link or write (if the link is not available) for the dictionary entry? I'm not sure we can fully copy it, so be sure about that and link the entry. :)
Answer: 一个例子 means a example.
and 榜样 means a PERSON who made good examples.
or 榜样 describe a excellent person


How to judge progress in vipassana

Question: In samatha one can judge their progress through the progression of jhana, is there a concrete/measurable way to judge progress in vipassana?
Comment: I hope my answer helps though I have being a bit tangential in the answer.
Answer: There are multiple stages of insight before you reach stream entry. Then there are the 4 stages of sainthood which follows which you can judge of the fetters and defilements that remain.
Taking Dependent Origination into account the main issue leading to the conditioned existence is when we sense any sensations due to, we react with with like or dislike which you try to possess or get rid of. This keeps you rolling in stress and conditioned existence. Once you feel the sensation and you maintain your equanimity then you stop conditioning. Therefore by all means the best measure of your progress is much equanimity and awareness you have towards feeling and sensations that arise in different situations. At a more advanced stage when your equanimity is not wavering, the main measure can become how much of the 3 characteristics of existence you can see. At some point your will start seeing the arising and passing away of phenomena in  any place of your body confirming everything is in a flux of change. You will realise any feeling you get has a finite length. It arrives as cluster of vibrating quantum particles and stays for a finite duration. You have no absolute control over creating, maintaining or the sensation of a particular sensation.
The next way you can monitor your progress is through your wellbeing and that of others people around you. You will be less agitated and stressful. This intern makes people around you less agitated and stressful. You become moral. Each time you try to generate negativity you see the process of stress and agitation building in you. This re enforces your morality and cordial interaction with others. You will have a balanced mind thus make the right proactive decisions than emotional reactive decision. This will be profitable for you in this life and the afterlife for you and everyone around you. Also you will experience peace and happiness with in you. As always your 1st measure of progress should be equanimity and mindfulness after which is firmly established you can look at the secondary measures. You will actively investigate the phenomena arising and passing away within the framework of your body. Once well You will feel pleasant and relaxed. Your mind will get focused. You will have a lot of energy in you.
Another way to measure your progress is through the level of understanding of the Noble Truths at the experiential level (Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi). If you were to use another way to investigate your progress you can keep looking at sensation within you. In further investigation you will see that any stress or agitation arises arriving in you. On further investigating you will see what causes this is your attachment and aversion. You will start seeing if something happens to something you identify as me or mine (things, ideas, thoughts, views, body, friends and foes) you get either agitated or pleased. The lack of mindfulness and equanimity you grasp to the feeling that arrised when you sense something. (E.g. your foe losing his job.) You always long for similar incidents as when you get to know and recognise this is in deed your foe then you experience the some feeling. As you practice, you see when your get any volition in your mind, you experience sensations. You see the sensations as not permanent, grasping to them cause resentment and not absolutely controllable. When you are equanimous and mindful in all times you see that this reduces the stress and agitation in you. You will see every time you even think about breaking your morality you get stressed and agitated, more control you exercise over your mind and prevent it going into negative states more positive you feel and when it does go agitation and stress arises, you will see each time you like or dislike towards something (starting with a certain type of feeling) you loose your balance of your mind and craving to create any such sensation or feeling is not under your absolute control, does not last long and since it does not last it is not satisfactory. You see the way out of this is not to react to the sensations you experience but be aware looking at their true characteristics.
Also you can always be mindful of the defilements to see what frequently arices and how intense they are.
Monitoring progress is has its drawbacks. Proximate cause of looking at progress is striving too hard. You have to leave the results for itself to manifest in due time than be trying to be over mindful of the progress. If you are looking for progress too often then this is a sign of being too attached to the outcome thus losing the balance of your mind and falling behind in your practice.
You do occasionally (not too often or not too far paced) have to see how you are doing though. This is to see if you are doing the right practice and on track. If you are not making progress then the this might mean that you have missed some aspects of the practice or doing something wrong. When you do look at progress is that if is like a knife. You cannot see the daily wear and tear but suddenly notice that it has worn out though this was happening little by little over time.
Comment: Welcome. I have not linked some of the words to what I mean by them in some places. I hope this is not a problem.
Comment: Hello Sir, I am thinking about what happens if something comes back. For example, say I was mediating to let go of the habit of labeling everything as good or bad. At one point, I feel that I no longer have that habit but then I notice myself doing it again.
Answer: Eradication of sanskaras of craving and aversion, I'd say, is a good way to measure one's progress in Vipassana. Earlier I used to get upset with something and remained disturbed for one week, but after practising Vipassana for 4 hours daily for a month, now I get over with a similar turn of events in three minutes.
So, I could see very tangible progress in this path - hence I've kept up my efforts, though I am not always able to keep up that high levels of practice ...
but I am highly motivated to keep working hard ....
Metta
Answer: yes.
well theres a couple of ways...
1- you could study more about the stages of insight and enlightenment, and
2- you could practice with a monk regularly and ask for help.
Im sure there are other ways (and feel free to explore them) but these are traditionally how progress is made and verified in buddhism to he best of my knowledge and really, if you want to know how you're progressing on a buddhist path... theres only one type of person likely to be qualified to evaluate you (though not all monks are valid choices).
Here is a video my teacher made on the stages of insight through vipassana though for a short run down so you can make a general assessment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G3u4JEEdK1Y
Answer: Suminda concludes in another answer.

When you do look at progress is that if is like a knife. You cannot
  see the daily wear and tear but suddenly notice that it has worn out
  though this was happening little by little over time.

I would take this thought further. It describes the appearance of awakening. We don't add something, but we wear out something we never had.
The insights are a tool, a horse that trains us to be a good rider. When we get to the ocean we have no need of the horse. We sail on the waters of tranquillity.
Then what? Go down the other side of the mountain and live what we have discovered as our original mind.
These are not concrete in the sense of physical appearance, but when you start "wearing the knife down" there are noticeable changes in clarity of perception. At first they are fleeting, but with continued persistent and compassionate practice, the clarity of perception becomes something we no longer need or want to strive for. But seeking clarity for its own sake or for the sake of personal delight is an impediment. Putting clarity to work as a tool to help all by first clearing our perception and then living as an example of simplicity and awakened joy will speed this part of the journey.
Answer: The yardstick to measure progress is by sensing your volition to serve other people. If it is increasing you are on the right track.
Also if you are caught in the same situation as you did previously but acted In a calm and balanced manner, for your own benefit and benefit of others, you are on the right track.
If you got angry before and it lasted for several hours, has this period reduced? It eventually reduces as you tend to come out of your miseries quicker. Same for lust, hatred, jealousy etc.
-S.N Goenka (ten day discourses)

How to judge progress in vipassana


ADFS Relying Party

Question: I'm trying to set up an Active Directory Federation Service Relying Party and I get the following error.
I've tried modifying the page to allow <pages validateRequest="false"> to web.config and it doesn't make a difference.
Can someone help me out?
Server Error in '/test' Application.
A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client (wresult="<t:RequestSecurityTo...").
Description: Request Validation has detected a potentially dangerous client input value, and processing of the request has been aborted. This value may indicate an attempt to compromise the security of your application, such as a cross-site scripting attack. To allow pages to override application request validation settings, set the requestValidationMode attribute in the httpRuntime configuration section to requestValidationMode="2.0". Example: <httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0" />. After setting this value, you can then disable request validation by setting validateRequest="false" in the Page directive or in the <pages> configuration section. However, it is strongly recommended that your application explicitly check all inputs in this case. For more information, see http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=153133.

Exception Details: System.Web.HttpRequestValidationException: A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client (wresult="<t:RequestSecurityTo...").

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

Stack Trace:

[HttpRequestValidationException (0x80004005): A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client (wresult="<t:RequestSecurityTo...").]
System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateString(String value, String collectionKey, RequestValidationSource requestCollection) +11309476
System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateNameValueCollection(NameValueCollection nvc, RequestValidationSource requestCollection) +82
System.Web.HttpRequest.get_Form() +186

Microsoft.IdentityModel.Web.WSFederationAuthenticationModule.IsSignInResponse(HttpRequest request) +26

Microsoft.IdentityModel.Web.WSFederationAuthenticationModule.CanReadSignInResponse(HttpRequest request, Boolean onPage) +145

Microsoft.IdentityModel.Web.WSFederationAuthenticationModule.OnAuthenticateRequest(Object sender, EventArgs args) +108
System.Web.SyncEventExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute() +80
System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously) +266

`
Answer: I believe you now (as of .Net 4.0) also need the Request Validation Mode set to 2.0 in the web.config.  Like so:
<system.web>
  <httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0" />
  <pages validateRequest="false" />

Rick Strahl has a post on this:
RequestValidation Changes in ASP.NET 4.0

ADFS Relying Party