What is the theory behind these minor chords becoming major?

Question: Please tell what the theory is behind A minor chord becoming a major in a major scale, like now I am playing a Bollywood song called Senorita which is in the key of A major, but in the song there are some parts where C minor becomes C major, F♯ minor becomes F♯ major and B minor becomes B major. Please explain the theory behind it.
Comment: thank you very much,i have been looking for this for a long time...

One more there is another thing ,there is another song which starts on bb minor but later on it moves to g minor after touching dmajor how this is possible?
Comment: Everything in music has some sort of theoretical explanation,  but in modern music the theoretical analysis is often difficult/obscure and doesn't really help musicians . It will help you make money as an academic - someone who makes their living doing and teaching that sort of analysis, but not much more. Such music is "possible" not because of theory, but because songwriters try to be interesting and creative and don't necessarily care about or even know about "rules". Their goal is to make music that sounds interesting and produces a desired impact on listeners - that's all. – Stinkfoot 5
Comment: Would be applied dominants, I would say.
Answer: If there is a major chord where you expect a minor chord, it's often what you call a secondary dominant or applied chord, where this major chord is acting as a temporary dominant (V) of another harmony.
If you're in A major, the normal, diatonic version of the B triad is a minor triad. But if you encounter a B major triad, then this B major is often functioning as the dominant (V) of E. Especially if this B major then moves to an E chord (which is V), we understand that B major as a dominant to that E, and thus we label it a V/V (read "V of V").
If your F♯ chord were diatonic, it would be minor. Since it's F♯ major, we can understand it as the dominant (V) of B (ii in A), and thus label it V/ii.
With that said, this isn't always the case; we'd have to see their resolutions to know for sure. But I'd say this is the explanation about 80% of the time.
And as for C minor/major, did you mean C♯? (If so, I'll let you figure out what that one is the dominant of on your own!)
Answer: The 'theory' is borrowing. Sometimes pieces in a minor key can borrow harmonies/chords from the parallel major - and vice versa. So it's not only relative maj/min., but parallel maj/min.
Answer: You can excuse ANY chord by 'borrowing', so it's not really much of an explanation.   Just be aware that your choice of chords is wide open.  If you're writing classic hymn-tune harmony, you'll find secondary dominants and 'the cycle of 5ths' can explain a lot. But there are other ways of choosing chords.  When guitarists write songs, very often you get the feeling they simply take a chord shape and shift it up and down the neck.  So we might get a song that uses C, D, E, F, G, Ab, Bb, C chords. That's fine. If your system of 'theory' has problems with it, remember that 'Theory describes, it does not command', enjoy the sound and add it to your list of 'things that sound good' - your own personal 'theory book' if you like!
Moving between a major chord and the same minor one is a thing that sounds good. That's really all you need to say. You don't need to  validate it with a label 'modal interchange' or 'borrowing'.   Just add it to your bag of musical tricks.
Comment: Because YOU ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO USING ONLY DIATONIC CHORDS!  Sorry to shout, but this mistaken idea is behind so many questions in this forum.  There are SO many reasons why a chord progression can sound 'right'.  One of them is that all the chords belong to the same scale.  That's boring, but OK :-)   Or there may be notes in common - C major and Ab+ have two notes in common, so it's an interesting change without being completely disconnected.  Or we might just slide down - C9, B9, Bb9, A9.  Or.....
Comment: @kartikith - they are used because they sounded good to the one who wrote the music. That's all that really matters. Nobody gets fined if they break rules in music, because they're not really rules - if it sounds good, that's enough for us - that's what music is really about. Quoting Mr. Payne in his answer: _Theory describes, **it does not command.**_ If someone asks you "how it happened" the answer is "it happened because the composer liked it and hopes others also will like it."
Comment: Good comment about the borrowing... People that don't actually understand theory never get this and continue to use the ad-hoc principles they learned by wrote.
Answer: Certain chords work because of context and because of voice leading.  You can connect any chord to any other chord, FACT. The rules of harmony only give one theoretical justifications, but they are non-musical. It is true that the human mind likes to find simple relationships(= easy to understand) but we also like a challenge( = hard to understand). The balance is key to writing good music that survives.
If you think that some chord X is wrong because it doesn't fit your theory, then your theory is weak. You should ask yourself "Why does chord X fit and sound good to me?".
For example, in the key of G why does a iv chord work? We expect the IV chord? It works because it was made to work... because of what occurred before, what occurred after and that the song supported it.
To understand this stuff you must understand music.. which can't be taught. No amount of learning rules from someone will teach you this thing that so few understand. Learn music by working with music then all the "rules" will make sense and you will see the light.
It's sort of like breathing... no one tells you how, you just do it. It's something that is inside of your existence. Of course, you will get all kinds of people to tell you how to breath correctly and what is right and wrong. Music works in a similar way. It's in side you... and all you have to do is learn to let it out. Part of this is to master an instrument, else you have no way(you have to be able to make some noise). Chances are, You are not very proficient at any instrument and this is why you have problems. When you master an instrument(which doesn't mean you know ever chord, every scale, ever inversion, every melody, etc) it becomes very easy to explore the musical space and this is when music starts to occur.
Answer: To convert a minor chord to a major, you simply play the "third" one key to the right, for example, Cm is played as C, Eb, G . C major is C, E natural, G .


Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Question: Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Has this matter been considered in Christianity? I believe there could be only two possible options here: "Yes, he was" and "No, he wasn't". But what main supporting points have been put forth for either of these doctrines?
Comment: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1589/what-is-the-specific-meaning-of-die-in-genesis-2/1707#1707
Comment: I will again try and get clarity on the question. What is meant by mortal?  What is meant by immortal? Consider the amoeba from the perspective of the amoeba. Was Adam one entity like an amoeba or a series of entities unaware of its mortality and therefore from its point of view immortal like a haddock. (From the first man Adam to the last Adam). What kind of mortal/immortal are you asking about? Or is it an imaginary earthly immortality that is not of dust? Or an Adam that lived in a sort of Heaven (Eden)?
Comment: @gideonmarx - By "immortal" I mean being able - without partaking of the tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil - to stay always and forever alive physically, that is, never to arrive at what Adam eventually arrived when he turned 930 years old - separation of his body from his spirit.
Comment: We've hashed this question out plenty already. However, I cannot help but asking, "Is there any reason why God would NOT have granted Adam the gift of immortality? If so, what is the reason?" Additionally, "Is there any reason to believe God did NOT have the ability and/or the desire to make Adam's physical body immortal? If so, what would be the reason?" Just food for thought. Don
Comment: @rhetorician - "Is there any reason why God would NOT have granted Adam the gift of immortality?"
– Before I can try to answer this and other of your questions, I need to know the exact meaning that you attach to the word "immortality" here. As our recent discussion in the chat has shown (here: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/13841051#13841051 ), you and I have different things on our mind when we operate with such terms as "immortality" or "immortal". It is better if we continue in that chat.
Comment: There is another common possibility: Adam never existed, and the story is a metaphor.
Comment: @Flimzy "Adam never existed, and the story is a metaphor" - Do you claim this to be possible within the context of the Bible or outside of it?
Comment: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/44783/according-to-catholics-were-adam-and-eve-aware-that-they-possessed-immortal-soul
Answer: First, we must understand that only God is inherently immortal. The apostle Paulos states that God "alone has immortality" (ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν) (1 Tim. 6:16), for He alone is uncreated. Everything else that is not God is a creature, and thus, not inherently immortal. Now, although many creatures are not inherently immortal, God gives them immortality as He wills. This includes angels and Christians (John 10:28). (However, just as He gives immortality, He could also (potentially) take it away.)
As for Adam, we know for a fact that he was not inherently immortal, since only God is. Thus, the question we must ask is whether God ever gave immortality to Adam, before or after his transgression.
When Yahveh breathed into Adam's nostrils the "breath of life" (נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים), "Adam became a living creature" (וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה) (Gen. 2:7). However, we do not know whether Adam was immortal or mortal at this point. Some time thereafter, Adam partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:6). Afterwards, Yahveh declared (Gen. 3:22), "Behold, Adam became like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
To "live forever" is undoubtedly synonymous with "be immortal." But, the scripture is clear that Adam would only live forever (be immortal) if he partook from the tree of life. The logical consequence is that Adam was not immortal - at least not after the fall - because he never partook from the tree of life. Yahveh obstructed Adam's access to the tree of life and banished him from Paradise (Gen. 3:24). Again, this only proves that Adam was not immortal after the fall.
However, there is a possibility, as Brilliant noted, that Adam was immortal prior to his fall, being made so by Yahveh. Then, by partaking of the fruit, he lost this immortality, and Yahveh prohibited Adam from regaining this immortality by impeding access to the tree of life.
But, we should note that, in his original state, Yahveh made trees in the garden that were "good for food" (טוֹב לְמַאֲכָל) (Gen. 2:9). While one may argue that the trees could have provided food for animals rather than Adam, Yahveh indeed informed Adam that he could eat from the trees (Gen. 2:16). Now, Jesus himself ate food after his resurrection (Luke 24:30; 24:43) despite having an incorruptible and immortal body. Therefore, the argument could be made that such trees in the garden, despite being "good for food," do not necessarily indicate that Adam required sustinence from the trees, just as Jesus did not necessarily require sustinence from the food he ate after his resurrection in his incorruptible and immortal body.
All that being said, I believe the apostle Paulos provides a definite answer in his first epistle to the Corinthians. In discussing the resurrection of the dead, he wrote,

1 Cor. 15:44-45

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 Likewise it is written, the first man "Adam became a living creature" (*or soul). The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.
44 σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν καὶ ἔστιν σῶμα πνευματικόν 45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν

Now, it is important to note that in v. 44, the apostle Paulos is contrasting two bodies: the "natural body" (lit. "soulish body": σῶμα ψυχικόν) and the "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Then in the very next verse, saying "likewise it is written," he establishes the proof of these two bodies, using as examples "the first man Adam" who "became a living soul" and "the last Adam," Jesus Christ, who became "a life-giving spirit."
By this, we can establish that Adam possessed the "natural body" (σῶμα ψυχικόν) at the very moment he "became a living soul." Since he became a living soul (Gen. 2:7) prior to his transgression and fall, then we could ascribe all the properties the apostle Paulos attributes to the "natural body" in 1 Cor. 15 to Adam himself prior to his fall. These would include:

corruption (φθορά) (1 Cor. 15:42)
dishonor (ἀτιμία) (1 Cor. 15:43)
weakness (ἀσθένεια) (1 Cor. 15:43)

More importantly, it would include mortality and corruptibility (1 Cor. 15:53-54). On the other hand, Jesus who became a life-giving spirit possessed the spiritual body with the attributes of immortality and incorruptibility.
Comment: Of course, there is yet another logical consequence, but it isn't directly related to this question. Since Adam would "certainly die" by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, yet Adam was already mortal (again, he was never given immortality), it should thus be clear that Yahveh's words ("certainly die") did not apply to physical death. :)
Comment: "But, the scripture is clear that Adam would only live forever (be immortal) if he partook from the tree of life" - How is that clear?! I mean, how is it clear that that also applies to Adam before the fall? Couldn't it have been so that Adam was immortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge and because of partaking of it he then lost his immortality and, thus, now needed the tree of life to become immortal again? This option may sound a bit overstretched, yet it is a valid option that needs to be rebutted somehow before we can say "it is clear".
Comment: Ah, I see. So you believe it's possible that God gave him immortality when He made him, his partaking of the fruit caused him to lose that immortality, and then God prevented him from again being immortal by obstructing access to the tree of life.
Comment: Yes. Not that I believe for sure that that possibility was the case, but I am still forced to keep this option as possible until I am given the proof of its impossibility.
Answer: H3br3wHamm3r81's answer is good, but it is maybe too well argued, and I think perhaps s/he is missing the forest for the trees.
God told our first parents

". . . for in the day that you eat from [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die" (Genesis2:17b).

I'll leave the Hebrew-to-English translation job to those who are well-versed in that valuable process. Assuming the translators of the NIV have done the heavy lifting for us already in that regard, I'll provide what I believe is a fair, albeit very liberal, paraphrase of God's instruction to the first man:

"Adam, in the garden I've designed for you to cultivate and keep, there are many fruit-bearing trees. Feel free, my son, to eat the fruit of any tree. There is, however, one tree, and one tree only, from which you are not allowed to eat, and that is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you choose to eat of that one tree, from the moment you eat of it you will begin to die, both physically and spiritually."

I've paraphrased vv.15-17 in the way I have because I think it makes at least one thing clear: Adam would retain the gift of immortality if and only if he were to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ("Good and evil," by the way, is a Hebrew merism which today we might translate whimsically "the whole kit and caboodle," or "from soup to nuts." In other words, "the whole ball of wax.")
I assume, for the time being, that the only insight into evil Adam had prior to his disobedience was that disobedience was the wrong thing to do. In other words, it was bad, and it had a bad consequence (viz., death). How much Adam and his soulmate understood about death, we do not know. Had they already partaken of the tree of life prior to their disobedience? Probably. After all, if you already have the gift of immortality, you cannot become more immortal than immortal!
What God makes eminently clear in the text is that His preventing them from eating from the tree of LIFE came AFTER they had sinned. To have allowed our first parents to partake of the tree of life as sinners would have been unthinkable for a loving God. Imagine living forever with no prospect of redemption. Personally, I shudder at the thought.
Now I realize my use of the word redemption, above, has anachronism written all over it, but think on it for a moment. In light of what we know today about our physical bodies, how that virtually every kind of cell in our bodies (save for brain cells) is replaced with a new cell on a regular basis, who is to say the process could NOT continue forever?  Were it not for the "death gene" (again, another anachronism) being passed via Adam to the next generation and to each successive generation thereafter, there is no physical reason why the human species could not be immortal.

For as in Adam all die , even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV).

However, the last Adam--Jesus, the Son of God--did not receive the "death gene" from an earthly father. His genetic code came from His heavenly Father, even though the egg came from the ovaries of a mortal woman (who herself HAD inherited the death gene from an earthly father and was thus destined to die, according to Protestant theology, that is).

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV).

In conclusion, my analysis of the text in Genesis 2 may be flawed by its inclusion of anachronisms, but if there is a flaw in my interpretation, it is not in the anachronisms; rather, it may be in my logic and reasoning (and here is where you might disagree with me):

Were it not for the first sin of disobedience, there would have been no death. Only in disobeying would our first parents die, and if they did not die, then they must of necessity have been given immortality when God breathed into their nostrils the breath of life.  Immortal life. (rhetorician)

BONUS MATERIAL:  Interestingly, in Revelation 22 we read of another tree of life.

"Then [the angel] showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, [and] in the middle of its street on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations" (22:1,2).

So here we have bookends; we have come full circle. What started as a second, forbidden tree, of which our first parents could not partake once they had sinned, ended up as an eternally fruit-bearing tree of which all God's children may partake.
As for how and why the leaves of this eternal tree serve to heal the nations, I'll leave that for another OP to question!
Comment: (1) "Had they already partaken of the tree of life prior to their disobedience? Probably" - I find it rather hard to agree with. From God's concern about Adam's future after his fall and His follow-up actions in preventing Adam from partaking of the tree of life we can at least infer that the effects of partaking from the two trees are not mutually-excluding, that is, it is possible to have the effect of partaking of the bad tree (being separated from God and being aware of good and evil) and at the same time to have the effect of partaking of the good
Comment: (2) tree (being immortal). Thus, if Adam had already partaken of the tree of life prior to partaking of the tree of knowledge, then he would've already been immortal and it would've already been "too late" for God to do anything about it.
Comment: @brilliant: "if Adam had already partaken of the tree of life . . . then he would've already been immortal," you said. Not necessarily. If we assume the ONLY function of the tree of life was to convey immortality, then you may be correct. If, OTOH, we assume the tree of life had other special attributes, then you might be incorrect. Life to our first parents involved evolution (not macro-evolution!) of their spiritual, physical, emotional, aesthetic lives. IOW, the "tree of life" as metaphor, if you will, conferred blessings on two souls who were ALREADY immortal because they were without sin.
Comment: "If we assume the ONLY function of the tree of life was to convey immortality, then you may be correct. If, OTOH, we assume the tree of life had other special attributes, then you might be incorrect" - Even if it had other special attributes, their presence still did not nullify its ability to convey immortality, otherwise God would've not said "... now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and **live for ever**" (Gen. 3:22)
Comment: The tree of life in the new heaven (Rev 22) confers something other than immortality to God's children, since we'll already possess it! Perhaps in heaven our lives will continually be enriched, enhanced, and capable of growth in understanding of and appreciation for all that God had prepared for us well in advance of our being with Him in His abode. I think we need to leave a little metaphorical wiggle room in how we view the tree of life. The expression "L'chaim" implies growth, not merely longevity. God alone is the possessor of eternal life, and He never grows. We, on the other hand . . ..
Comment: But when did God prevent our first parents from partaking of the tree of life? Yes, AFTER they had sinned, not before. Both our "arguments" are, in a sense, based on--or depend on--the Scripture's silence on the matter, since we really don't know whether or not A & E partook of the tree of life prior to their fall from grace. I do not suggest dogmatically they did; that's why I said in my answer,"probably." Let's not forget the TOL in Rev 22. The saints will partake of it not to acquire immortality, but because they already possess it. Besides, God's command applied only to the TOTKOG&E.
Comment: I am afraid I don't understand you here. Are you trying to say that the tree of life somehow acquired the ability to convey immortality only after the fall of Adam, and prior to that it only had some special attributes, but not the ability to convey immortality?!
Comment: @brilliant: exactamundo! Why? Because prior to their disobedience A&E did not have the sentence of death hanging over them. What is more compatible than a possessor of eternal life partaking of fruit from the tree of life. Again, in the bookend TOL in Rev 22, the saints' partaking of that TOL does not impart eternal life; they already have the gift of EL. In the Genesis bookend, the TOL, similarly, nourished the possessors of immortality. After the fall, however, they were unfit to partake of its fruit (unless they wanted to live forever in their sin!). God had something FAR better in mind.
Comment: From eternity, He had a plan to wipe the slate clean, thereby providing humankind with a way of escape from sin and its death sentence. That plan was to send His only begotten Son into the world to liberate human beings from the penalty, power, and one day the very presence of sin. Jesus is the one in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin. When we believe in Him and receive Him as Savior and Lord, we have passed from death to life. On this side of heaven we have a more abundant life and we live in hope of eternal life when we die, even thought we possess it already by faith.
Comment: (1) I would rather stay within the context of this passage in Genesis and not jump to the book of Revelation as when you do that, you inevitably open up a whole lot of other dimensions that are now needed to be thoroughly searched before you could make any valid and reliable conclusions.
Comment: (2) For example, you seem to be working on the assumption that the saved nations mentioned in Rev. 21:24 and 22:2 are the saints – that is, those who through believing and receiving Jesus had been born of God and, thus, already possess the eternal life. But I've been familiar with a theology, according to which those saved nations are quite a different group of people – quite different from those who are in the very next verse referred to as "servants of God" (Rev. 22:3). According to this theology the latter ones are the true sons of God, born of God, possessing His eternal life since the
Comment: let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/12812/discussion-between-brilliant-and-rhetorician)
Answer: Perhaps death was not the RESULT of Adam's disobedience, but CERTAIN ("surely die") death was the RESULT.  That is, Adam was created mortal.  As a mortal, Adam would eventually die.  Hence, the availability of the Tree of Life (TOL).  That is, unless Adam partook of the TOL which he was free to eat from, he would eventually die.  It is clear from scripture this tree in some manner would impart immortality if it was eaten from (Gen. 3:22).
God's pronouncement that "you will SURELY die" conveyed the CERTAINTY of Adam's death if he partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TOKGE) in his mortal state.  Adam, as a mortal being would during the course of time eventually die.  However, with the TOL being freely available for Adam to eat from, we can assume that he would eventually partake of it  at which time Adam would become immortal (Gen. 3:22). Unfortunately, Adam partook of the TOKGE before the TOL, thus he would SURELY die. Inherent in this pronouncement that he would SURELY die is God's intention to keep Adam from partaking of the TOL if he partook of the TOKGE first.  In other words, God would have to bar Adam from partaking of the TOL if he partook of the TOKGE first as Gen. 3:22 states God did.  By partaking from the TOKGE first, it was certain ("SURELY") Adam would die because the TOL would no longer be available to the mortal to stave off death's eventuality.  If the TOL was still readily available to Adam after his fall so that he could partake of it, he would "live forever" in his fallen state according to Gen. 3:22.
It is clear from Gen 3:22 that if Adam partook of the TOL, he would become immortal.  If he partook of the TOL before partaking of the TOKGE, he would become immortal (without sin).  Perhaps the TOKGE would then have been made available to Adam as a benefit to him.  That is, with immortality imparted first, the TOKGE could be made available to him by God to add to Adam's godliness (God-likeness) "...knowing good and evil" like God (Gen. 3:22).
After all, having the knowledge of good and evil was not what was sinful for Adam, his disobedience was what was sinful, according to the Bible.
Comment: "...his disobedience was according to the Bible" - What do you mean by this last phrase in your answer?
Comment: Thanks for your consideration.  To clarify, according to Bible, Adam's sin was disobedience.  God commanded him not to touch/partake of the TOKGE.  The Bible does not say that Adam's acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was sinful.  In fact, Gen 3:22 states that Adam became like God knowing good and evil.  Being like God (on His terms of course) is never sinful.  Adam's acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was on his own terms when he disobeyed God by taking from the TOKGE when he did.  The proverbial "means does not justify the end" applies here.
Comment: @user10777 Great answer, though I do not concur with your comment as God NEVER told them not to touch it. The woman added  to what God had actually said, falling deeper into Satan's deception. Great answer nonetheless.
Answer: Life is determined by our relationship to God.
Mortality is being susceptible to death, Adam was always susceptible to death and God warned Adam of his susceptibility:

Genesis 2:16,17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

We were intentioned for life:

2 Corinthians 5:1-4 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

We look forward to life eternal:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
  John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
  Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
  Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Eternal life is subject to our relationship with God:

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Therefore, man was created mortal, susceptible to death but the new birth assures eternal life, life eternal in Christ!
Answer: (Just sharing a different idea based on the pseudepigraphical book "The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan")
Adam had immortal body before the fall
Adam and Eve had a perfect immortal body before they eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After eating the fruit, their body was altered and became mortal, which will ultimately return to dust, though their soul(or spirit) is still immortal.

And, indeed, when Adam looked at his flesh, that was altered, he wept
  bitterly, he and Eve, over what they had done (Chapter IV, verse 2)

Adam had a bright nature before the fall.

THEN Adam wept and said, "O God, when we dwelt in the garden, and our
  hearts were lifted up, we saw the angels that sang praises in heaven,
  but now we do not see as we were used to do; nay, when we entered the
  cave, all creation became hidden from us." Then God the Lord said unto
  Adam, "When thou wast under subjection to Me, thou hadst a bright
  nature within thee, and for that reason couldst thou see things afar
  off. But after thy transgression thy bright nature was withdrawn from
  thee; and it was not left to thee to see things afar off, but only
  near at hand; after the ability of the flesh; for it is brutish."
  (Chapter VIII)

Adam did not need food and water before the fall.

"And of Thy goodwill, O Lord, Thou madest us both with bodies of a
  bright nature, and Thou madest us two, one; and Thou gavest us Thy
  grace, and didst fill us with praises of the Holy Spirit; that we
  should be neither hungry nor thirsty, nor know what sorrow is, nor yet
  faintness of heart; neither suffering, fasting, nor weariness. "But
  now, O God, since we transgressed Thy commandment and broke Thy law,
  Thou hast brought us out into a strange land, and has caused
  suffering, and faintness, hunger and thirst to come upon us. (Chapter
  XXXIV)

Adam and Eve will go to Hell after they die and will be tortured with fire by Satan. They will be delivered from Hell only when God shed His blood for them.

God said also to Adam, "See this fire kindled by Satan around thy
  cave; see this wonder that surrounds thee; and know that it will
  encompass about both thee and thy seed, when ye hearken to his behest;
  that he will plague you with fire; and that ye shall go down into hell
  after ye are dead.
  "Then shall ye see the burning of his fire, that will thus be burning
  around you and your seed. There shall be no deliverance from it for
  you, but at My coming; in like manner as thou canst not now go into
  thy cave, by reason of the great fire around it; not until My Word
  shall come that will make a way for thee on the day My covenant is
  fulfilled. (Chapter XLV, verse 9,10)
And, again, as regards the Water of Life thou seekest, it will not be
  granted thee this day; but on the day that I shall shed My blood upon
  thy head in the land of Golgotha. "For My blood shall be the Water of
  Life unto thee, at that time, and not to thee alone, but unto all
  those of thy seed who shall believe in Me; that it be unto them for
  rest for ever." (Chapter XLII, verse 7,8)
Answer: Mortality (one among the changes) was injected into humans by the consuming of the fruits by Adam and Eve. Jesus Christ repaid that debt for humanity to be reaped by whoever believes in Him [1Corinthians 15:21+].
[Romans 5:12+]


How to review questions with votes to close?

Question: Is there a way to see all questions that currently have votes to close by someone? Seems like it would be useful to have community members be able to look through any questions with close votes all at once to weed out bad questions/spam/dupes quicker.
Answer: If you have access to moderator tools, there is a button in the upper bar named "tools" that shows you which questions have close votes.
If you don't have enough reputation, that button is named "review" and it doesn't show that information as far as I know. You can, however, see a list of low quality posts, which might help.
Comment: thanks. good to know. another couple weeks and i'll be there I think ;)


Users shouldn't have to make new accounts because they can't ask new questions anymore because of downvotes

Question: The lost ability to ask questions is very discouraging for new users and makes them think badly of this website.Often they get downvoted by misunderstanding.They also improve their questions and/or answers to others but the downvote stays.Sometimes new users get downvotes even for mentioning they use a specific product brand from so called "fanboys"
Comment: Have you deleted any questions?
Comment: This is getting no where. If you don't want to be constructive why post? Rants like this aren't appreciated.
Comment: The summary is that they mostly get downvoted when they shouldn't or don't really have to and if the downvote rarely is justified their improvement is ignored and downvoted more by more users not even reading your post or trying to understand you they just read someone's wrong reason for downvoting.
Comment: Obligatory reading, http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/8533/what-should-i-do-now-that-i-cant-ask-more-questions, but in summary, no, you shouldn't.
Comment: BTW, are you question baned?
Comment: @Braiam Im writing using examples of what happened to Me. I was very offended by the unjustified downvoting
Comment: @Seth my construction has been drawn.Now Im trying to pass the blueprint ot you.
Answer:
The summary is that they mostly get downvoted when they shouldn't

Really? I believe that we are not voting enough, up and down. So, if some post moved the community disagreement with it (either because is wrong or impossible of understand) is a good thing that the community was shaken to certain extent.

Im writing using examples of what happened to Me. I was very offended by the unjustified downvoting.

Well, if you want to take downvotes personal that's your personal problem. Downvotes has been justified in the site as "This answer is not helpful" or "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful". So, instead of asking people to explain their downvotes sit yourself and think: what could I improve or my post is lacking to prevent more downvotes?. That is the most constructive behavior, instead of coming to Meta without a proper example of what downvotes you disagree with.
BTW, for your lack of research I downvoted your meta Q. There are figuratively, thousands of posts in meta about downvotes.
Answer: Not from me.
I have difficulty understanding how someone gets to the point of not being able to ask new questions when they ask good questions.  I've never had this happen.
I have also had a mod ask me at one point or another why I was mass deleting questions/answers.  I was cleaning out my zero queue.  So, it was self motivated site cleanup.  Still, it got a question, because I had other good answers and questions.
I just can't understand how someone can use the site well and still be in this situation.
Comment: One of my examples is I wrote Windows in title next to Ubuntu and got downvotes straight away.I asked why and got answer this is off topic.No one even read what I actually wrote! I only mentioned Windows as maybe it could fix a Ubuntu issue I had.
Comment: How do you know no one read what you wrote? You don't!
Comment: @Seth clearly they didn't or they didn't care what Ive wrote.I bet they thought let's downvote!That loser uses Windows!
Comment: @user251046 I've never seen that happen. Got a link?
Comment: Come talk about it in chat if you have an issue: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/201/ask-ubuntu-general-room ...  Whining here in comments is not productive.  A link would also be helpful.


What are the proper precautions/protocols for storing food while car camping in an area with bears?

Question: Anyone with experience in bear-populated areas, what's the best way to store food when your on the move with a car?  Are some foods better than others?  Wondering specifically about black bears in Northern California, but would things be different if you were in say Montana around the grizzlies?
Answer: I caution against storing the food in your car.  Bears have been known to do serious damage to a car trying to get in.  Hence

Don't eat in the car - ever
Do not store food or other items that "smell" open in you car
While in transit, store items in sealed containers in your trunk
If you are in designated car camping spots, check to see if they have designated secure storage bins.
If there are no secure storage bins, use bear canisters
Don't just use bear bags, most western states require canisters
A bear can still roll your canister away so you make want to consider hanging it
Keep your camp to the triangle method if possible (some car camping sites are too small).  See this answer - https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/229/127

I have never found any research recommending one food over another for bear territory.  Bears are prone to investigate anything that might be food so it's unlikely you can avoid bears purely by food choice.
Comment: The biggest thing that you didn't touch on is that in areas were bear/human interactions are common, they have come to associate certain objects with food, like coolers. Even an empty cooler in your car that is visible from the outside can be targeted by a bear. Keep your car tidy and store all containers in a secure bin, or just outside and open if they are empty.

Also, most legal requirements for storage (at least in California bear areas) only apply for overnight storage in cars, but it would still be unwise to leave food in the car during the day, even if it isn't strictly forbidden
Comment: Everything about food also applies to other scented items such as toothpaste, sunscreen, and air fresheners.
Comment: *You may want to consider hanging it* is in direct contradiction to [these answers](http://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/5748/566).  Do you simply disagree, or are the circumstances different?
Comment: Remember 2 key things: 1) bears have one of the best senses of smell of all animals, at 2100 times better than humans on average! 2) because others have had food in cars and bears have broken in, they've associated cars with food... cars are like wrapped candies. This is what I learned from a former Yosemite park ranger: https://www.lastmingear.com/protips/bear_safety_1


Incentive for validating block

Question: When miners find a solution to a block and broadcast it, what is the incentive for the other miners to actually validate that it is correct? It seems that they might save time by just starting to work in the next block instead of validating. Do they get some kind of reward or penalty?
Answer:
what is the incentive for the other miners to actually validate that it is correct?

The incentive is to not mine a block on top of something that is invalid. If they do end up mining on top of an invalid block, then they waste effort (and thus money) on something that will never be accepted by the rest of the network.

It seems that they might save time by just starting to work in the next block instead of validating.

They do save time, and in fact, many miners actually do not validate the previous block before they start mining on it. While there is an incentive to validate blocks, no one can force anyone else to validate a block and the incentive is not high enough for miners to always validate a block before mining on it. Since invalid blocks happen rarely, many miners have found it unnecessary to validate blocks before beginning to mine on top of the block.
Many miners will still validate the block, just after they have begun mining on it. They instead will validate a block whilst they are already mining on it and only stop mining on it if it turns out to be invalid. Although they can lost money by doing this, the risk is not that great because blocks are rarely invalid but the reward is great due to the extra mining time.
Answer: The incentive to validate blocks comes from the fact that future blocks build upon it. If a miner skips validation and just starts building a new block and it turns out that the rest of the network has rejected the previous block, any new blocks the miner creates linking to the invalid block will also be rejected, and the miner will lose any work they put into those.

Incentive for validating block


What does "out round" mean in NFL?

Question: In training session, someone told the other NFL players, "Out round" and then the player passed a ball. Does it mean knockout round?
it's from TV show psych season 3, episode 13.
Comment: The only possible thing that I have found so far is, [Out pattern](http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary_general#o)  – The course that a wide receiver runs where he starts running straight downfield and then turns and runs toward the sideline in an attempt to get open. And there is nothing mentioning out round.
Comment: Could you add a link to where you found this phrase? It may be possible you've misheard it.
Comment: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=psych&episode=s03e13
here is a script
Answer: My interpretation is that the fake psychic character is using this as a situation to show his knowledge (or psychic ability) by predicting the play that the offense was about to run.  It looks to me that he says "out round" not to the other players, but to his partner, and then celebrates the result of the play as if his prediction were correct.
Now, what would "out round" mean here?  As Ram commented, it's similar enough to "out pattern" that it sounds like a route for a receiver to run.
Unless someone knows of a specific meaning for the phrase, my suspicion is that it is simply a throwaway line that didn't mean anything in particular, but sounds like a plausible NFL play.
Comment: Since you mention you haven't seen the scene, I think quarterback only said Set Hut but the actor said Out Round. [Dailymotion](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x530cgc) 06:49.
Answer: You mean out route? Same thing as down & out or a jet route. It's a pattern that receivers run, starting by running straight down the field toward the EZ. After a certain number of steps, he'll make a hard cut (90 degrees) toward one of the sidelines.
This kind of route is good for forcing 1v1 coverage. It's a great way to move down the field and stop the clock because the receiver will be able to hop out of bounds after catching the ball--for this reason, you'll often see the route run under 2 minutes.

What does "out round" mean in NFL?


Best method of speeding up Monero downloading / syncing of the xmr blockchain?

Question: My node is 8000 blocks behind, and its taking quite a while to sync. Is there a faster way to sync / download the Monero blockchain?
Comment: Downloading and importing the blockchain is slower in most circumstances than letting it sync on its own.
Comment: how is that possible? Even if I downloaded the monero blockchain at 1 gbit and then imported it?
Answer: You can download the blockchain and then import it using the instructions here:
How to synchronize the GUI wallet using the blockchain bootstrap
Answer: I've got same problem setting up my local Monero node. I've started downloading it, but as size increase I could not afford to host it on my laptop. So I choose to host it on a VPS, a small one so it wouldn't be expensive.
On Linode the VPS main disk it's a SSD, but could't be expanded for more space, so I have to put the blockchain into a separate disk and unfortunately on Linode they are very slow.
I've setup first a bigger VPS with 160 SSD, then download the cli and setup a configuration:
<code># Data directory (blockchain db and indices)
data-dir=/home/monero_wallet/data

# Log file
log-file=/home/monero_wallet/data/bitmonero.log
log-level=0

# Deatached
# detach=1
# non-interactive=1

# Mining
start-mining=
bg-mining-enable=1
bg-mining-ignore-battery=1
bg-mining-miner-target=35

# P2P full node
p2p-bind-ip=0.0.0.0            # Bind to all interfaces (the default)
p2p-bind-port=18080            # Bind to default port

# RPC open node
rpc-bind-ip=0.0.0.0            # Bind to all interfaces
rpc-bind-port=18081            # Bind on default port
confirm-external-bind=1        # Open node (confirm)
restricted-rpc=1               # Prevent unsafe RPC calls
rpc-login=user:pass            # RPC login
no-igd=1                       # Disable UPnP port mapping

# Slow but reliable db writes
db-sync-mode=safe

# Emergency checkpoints set by MoneroPulse operators will be enforced to workaround potential consensus bugs
# Check https://monerodocs.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/ for explanation and trade-offs
enforce-dns-checkpointing=1

out-peers=64              # This will enable much faster sync and tx awareness; the default 8 is suboptimal nowadays
in-peers=1024             # The default is unlimited; we prefer to put a cap on this

limit-rate-up=1048576     # 1048576 kB/s == 1GB/s; a raise from default 2048 kB/s; contribute more to p2p network
limit-rate-down=1048576   # 1048576 kB/s == 1GB/s; a raise from default 8192 kB/s; allow for faster initial sync
</code>
Then download the raw chain, import it without verification.
<code>$ ./monero-blockchain-import --log-level=1 --input-file ./data/blockchain.raw --data-dir ./data --dangerous-unverified-import=1 --resume=1
</code>
After this step was completed I've started the monerod node and sync-up with rest of the network.
<code>$ ./monerod --config-file=/home/monero_wallet/data/bitmonero.conf --detach
</code>
When everything was done, I've created a disk at 100GB and moved all files there. Then started again a monero node.
<code>$ mv /home/monero_wallet /mnt/monero_wallet/wallet -v
</code>
And downgraded my VPS to a cheaper one. I did this because I wanted to minimize the cost which are around 15$. But you can just setup a VPS and start the node.
The whole thing took almost a day, it would be faster to just use an open node, but wouldn't be of help if you want to use Monero for long term.
Answer: You can do the following to speed it up:
<code>./monerod --block-sync-size 1
</code>
Comment: That speeds it up, or slows it down ?
Comment: block-sync-size default is 20, so setting it to 1 slows it down....
Answer: Using a Monero client and syncing the blockchain via peer-to-peer will probably be a lot faster than trying to download blockchain.raw.


What is the difference between a 'cipher' and a 'mode of operation'?

Question: What is the difference between the term cipher (a name like RIJNDAEL) and mode of operation (like ECB)?
Aren't these both terms for the encryption/decryption technique?
Comment: No, Rijndael is a cryptographic primitive that you can do things with, a mode of operation is the method of using it. It is like saying that your block cipher is SUGAR, and the mode of operation is COOKIES or M&MS
Answer: A mode of operation is an explicit method by which we use a block cipher (eg AES) to do more than just encrypt one block of data. For example, it may allow us to encrypt multiple blocks of data (eg ECB,CBC etc), provide us with some authenticated encryption (eg GCM) or a method for encrypting disc storage (eg XTS).

Rijndael,DES etc are block ciphers. That means they provide a method for encrypting a fixed amount of data (in the case of AES, they encrypt blocks on 128 bits).
In practice, the amount of data you want to encrypt is often much larger than the block size. So, we either need to create more and more block ciphers of almost every size, or we come up with a way of using our block cipher to encrypt larger amounts of data.  This method is called a mode of operation.
To use the most simple case as an example, consider AES in ECB mode. ECB mode tells us that we need split our plaintext string into sections of 128 bits (possibly after some padding scheme). Then, each section is encrypted using AES, and the resultant encryptions are then concatenated to form our output ciphertext.
AES simply performs encryptions of the plaintext blocks we give it, whereas ECB allows us to encrypt arbitrarily large amounts of data.

For descriptions of many different modes of operation and a discussion of their merits/weaknesses, you might be interested in this paper by Rogaway, and section 2.3 provides his formalisation of a mode of operation.
Answer: A "cipher" is the algorithm which encrypts and decrypts data, while the "cipher-mode" defines how the cipher encrypts and decrypts it.
In other words: ciphers are the cryptographic algorithms that you use to encrypt/decrypt data, while cipher-modes define the "mode of operation" for applying the cipher. Both  are complementary and can be chosen separately.
In fact, you could think of it like this: if you choose a cipher it's like choosing what car you want to drive, while choosing a cipher-mode defines how you want to drive that car.
What might be interesting for you to know: if you do not choose a specific cipher-mode, you'll always find yourself using the default cipher-mode called "ECB" (Electronic CodeBook).
For an overview of different cipher-modes, I would like to point you to Wikipedia's  "Block cipher modes of operation" article.
Last but not least, here are two examples I've quickly wrapped up to show you where exactly the "cipher" plays a role, and where the "cipher-mode" comes in:

ECB
(The default, classic mode of encryption/decryption; but not really recommended due to potential security issues.)

CBC
(One of many cipher-mode options that - compared to ECB - represents a safer encryption/decryption mode.)
Answer: In general, a cipher is simply any algorithm for encrypting data.  It's a really broad term, and might cover anything from ancient substitution ciphers like the Caesar cipher to modern-day public-key ciphers like RSA.
In modern cryptography, there are two commonly encountered types of symmetric (i.e. not public-key) ciphers: block ciphers and stream ciphers.
A block cipher encrypts a block of, say, 64 or 128 bits of data, mapping it to another such block of the same size.  AES, a.k.a. Rijndael, is one well known example of a block cipher.
A stream cipher, on the other hand, can encrypt an arbitrarily long stream of bits, turning it into another (typically slightly longer) bitstream.  The RC4 algorithm is a fairly well known example of a a stream cipher.
On its own, a block cipher is obviously not nearly as useful as a stream cipher, at least unless you just happen to need to encrypt some very short messages that fit inside one block.  However, it turns out that block ciphers are a lot more versatile than stream ciphers as building blocks of other cryptographic tools, such as hash functions and message authentication codes.  Also, there's an extensive body of research on the construction and cryptanalysis of block ciphers, whereas relatively little is known about what makes a dedicated stream cipher (i.e. one not based on a block cipher) secure.  Thus, with the exception of a few dedicated stream ciphers like those in the eSTREAM portfolio, almost all modern cipher design and analysis effort is focused on block ciphers.
But for practical encryption, you still want a stream cipher.  This is where the modes of operation come in.  Basically, a mode of operation is a method for turning a block cipher into a stream cipher.
For example, if you want to encrypt a bunch of text with AES, you don't use the AES block cipher directly — the text probably wouldn't fit inside one AES block anyway.  Instead, you use a stream cipher built from AES using a suitable mode of operation, such as AES-CBC or AES-CTR, or even an authenticated encryption mode like AES-GCM or AES-SIV.
The nice thing about building stream ciphers out of block ciphers like that is that we can prove the security of the resulting stream cipher (in the sense of ciphertext indistinguishability under an appropriate attack model), provided that the underlying block cipher satisfies its own security assumptions (basically, is a pseudorandom permutation).  Since we know a lot more about designing secure block ciphers than we know about stream ciphers in general, this is a very attractive feature.  Also, as noted above, the same block cipher can be used in other ways to construct many other useful cryptographic tools, which also enjoy similarly provable security.
Answer: I think cipher can mean several things.
Mainly we think here of the cipher as the algorithm that changes plaintext into ciphertext, creating confidentiality of the plaintext. If the term is used in that context, then a cipher is the combination of a mode of operation, configured using a block cipher and an optional padding mode. Alternatively it could be a stream cipher (stream ciphers do not require either a mode of operation or padding mode - in general).
On the other hand we sometimes also use the word cipher for cryptographic primitives. It would be a bit weird to say that a block cipher such as AES is not a cipher. But as it is not secure in the cryptographic sense, we normally use the word "cipher" as indicated in the first section of the answer. However, it seems that you're targeting this definition from the question.
I guess then the final answer will be: "a mode of operation can be used with a block cipher and optional padding mode to create a cipher". This neatly covers both possibilities.

Of if you want to make the main differences explicit:

a block cipher securely encrypts (permutes) single blocks of plaintext given a random key - because the key is not reusable it is not CPA secure;
a mode of operation configured with a block cipher and padding mode and and IV can encrypt plaintext between 0 bytes and a (high) maximum input size, and may do so using multiple keys, it should be CPA secure;
Comment: For the little that my opinion is worth, I *do* think it's weird to refer to AES as a "cipher."  If we consistently labeled it a "pseudorandom permutation" instead of "cipher" we'd save laypersons a lot of confusion; it would help communicate the fact that AES is most likely not the function they're looking for.


Can't connect to my own wifi network

Question: I use ubuntu 12.04 on various differents laptops/netbooks on my home. I was able to connect to my own wifi network. But sometimes, I couldn't connect to my wifi network, it ask me for password again and again. After many tries (a lot of them), sometimes I can connect, but sometimes I can't. I have this problem with a Samsung netbook and with a HP laptop. Right now, I can't connect with the HP laptop. I'll be grateful for any help.
Best regards,
Nicolás
Answer: If this is happening with both your laptops then there must be a problem with the signal. It happens often with me also. you should speak to whoever is responsible for the network.

Can't connect to my own wifi network


What could cause wired internet latency to increase between wired users?

Question: I have 3 roommates (4 people total). Three users, including me, use wired internet. The fourth uses wireless internet (connected to our network). During the evenings, they complain of high network latency - specifically massive lag spikes - that ruins their gaming experience. At times, they have pulled out my Ethernet cable (without my permission) in attempting to lower their network latency. Although I'm not intentionally running any bandwidth-intensive applications (I'm programming, and frequently executing Git commit and pushes), they say that the internet is much faster and the problem is fixed when they pull out my Ethernet cable (which puts me back on wireless internet). It seems like when I'm on wireless internet, even though I continue running the same applications, they're no longer plagued by high network latency issues.
Things to note:

At least once a week, our internet becomes unbearably slow for no reason (15 seconds to load Google).
My internet usage consists of heavy web browsing (usually every other minute, 25+ tabs), Git commits, and Dropbox-like file syncing (Cubby). Occassionally I game too, but that can't be the issue because they complain of latency issues while I'm not gaming. Also, I have since exited Cubby because I suspected the file syncing might cause massive lag spikes - things haven't gotten better.
They only seem affected when gaming. They haven't complained of slow web browsing.
The last roommate permanently on wireless internet only surfs the web occasionally.
Our service (in the morning when everything's perfect):

What could be the explanation? What is responsible for the high network latency issues (or at least massive lag spikes)? This is a frustrating experience for both me and my roommates.
I have two hypotheses:

More people using the wired internet increases average network latency for all. I'm not sure why wireless internet users don't affect the network latency of wired users (at least in our case, when they pull out my Ethernet cable and put me on wireless internet, they say there's no more lag).
It depends on the time of day. In our neighborhood, more users are accessing the internet in the evenings, which might increase network latencies.
Answer: Try simply replacing the cable between your computer and the router.  You should use a packet analyzer like Wireshark and take a look at the traffic between your PC and the router/switch.  It wouldn't hurt to monitor their segments as well, but I'd start with yours.
If their opinion the lag goes away when you're on wireless is valid, there is likely a layer-1 or layer-2 problem on your segment.


Is gender a result of Kamma?

Question: Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?
Answer: Karma is a very complicated process. We could in fact say that just about everything affects just about everything else - if a butterfly beats its wings in China, it does probably play some infinitesimal role in causing hurricanes in Florida. If, by karma, you mean any old action whatsoever, then indeed, there are probably certain actions (especially mental ones) that lead one to be reborn as one gender or the other.
Specifically, a man's obsession with women would most likely cause him to be reborn as a woman, and vice versa. This is most likely what happened in the stories we have that have been traditionally interpreted as suggesting that adultery leads to being born a woman. It is far more likely, in my mind, that male adultery with women leads to being born a woman, and female adultery with men leads to being born a man. The cause being the insane obsession.
This, of course, is not what is meant by karma and result in a Buddhist sense. Here the fact that one was born a woman or a man was not a "bad" or "good" result, it was just a case of obsession leading to realization of the object of obsession.  If one were insanely obsessed with cats, one would likely be born a cat.
If, by karma, you are referring to ethical acts, in the sense that, for example, being born gender A is the good result of certain good deeds and being born gender B is the evil result of certain evil deeds, it seems unlikely that one could infer that from the Buddha's teaching - itthindriya and purisindriya are just two of the many aspects of physical being; there is nothing intrinsically inferior or superior between the two, I don't think.
That being said, genders are hardly ever equal, physically or socially, in any species of being; in India at the time of the Buddha and when the commentaries were written, for example, being born a human female would have been a bad thing given their inferior social status, and thus could be taken indirectly as a sign of bad past karma. Too, the physiology of a human female is arguably (though not conclusively so) a cause of greater potential suffering than of its male counterpart, forcing one to deal with menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc., as well as generally inferior strength.
Of course, this need not always be true; nor does it imply that the female faculty itself is inferior to the male faculty, or brought about by bad karma in all cases. Several species of mammal exhibit characteristics of female domination; the human species itself seems to be heading closer to a level of equality between the genders. Thus, it seems erroneous to suggest that one gender is an intrinsic result of good karma and another the intrinsic result of bad karma.
To be perfectly clear, in the abhidhamma, karma refers to one's mental volition or motivation, and the result is always expressed in terms of experience - good karma results in good experience, bad karma results in bad experience (viz. of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking). For gender to play any intrinsic role in bringing about the result of good or bad karma, it would have to intrinsically be the cause of specific pleasant or unpleasant experiences. Again, any such relationship seems more related to the evolution of certain species and cultures than the intrinsic nature of the genders.
Finally, the whole concept of karma is suspect; an arahant performs no karma, good or evil, and doesn't see any experience as either pleasant or unpleasant. In ultimate reality, whether certain experiences are "good" or "bad" seems largely subjective, and any volition or motivation that leads one to be reborn as either a male or a female of any species is definitely "bad" or "wrong" in an ultimate sense.
Comment: Bhante, regarding good Karma resulting in pleasant experiences and bad Karma resulting in unpleasant experiences not being true in the case of Arahants, I've seen a relevant distinction being made as Paramatta Sacca vs Ariya Sacca in the book "Chaturarya Satya" by the late most venerable Rerukane Chandawimala thero. It is presented as an instance when Paramatta Sacca also becomes false in comparison to Ariya Sacca, i.e. even if the experiences are categorised into three(Sukha, Dukkha, Adukkamasuka) in Paramatta Sacca. The first noble truth describes any experience as an instance of Dukkha.
Answer: Yes it's a result of kamma. Being born as a male is considered a result of a higher kamma. In Paramatthajotika by Buddhaghosha thera(can't find the english translation) it is mentioned that being born as a female is due to the violation of the third precept in a previous life.
In Therigatha 400-470 mentions the story of a Bhikkuni named Isidasi who lived during Buddha's time who violated this precept eight lifetimes ago being born as a man. The rest of her lives are as follows:

Therefrom deceasing, long I ripened in Avici hell And then found
  rebirth in the body of an ape. Scarce seven days I lived before the
  great Dog-ape, the monkey's chief, castrated me. Such was the fruit of
  my lasciviousness.
Therefrom deceasing in the woods of Sindh, Born the offspring of a
  one-eyed goat And lame, twelve years a gelding, gnawn by worms. Unfit,
  I carried children on my back. Such was the fruit of my
  lasciviousness.
The next time she was born a calf and was again castrated, and as a bullock pulled a plough and a cart. Then, as the worst of that evil kamma's results had already ripened, Isidasi returned to the human realm. But it was still an uncertain kind of birth as she was the hermaphroditic child of a slave. That life too did not last long. Next, she was the daughter of a man oppressed by debts.

In Abhidhamma the definition of the two sexes (Bhava rupa) is given like this,

The sex of a living thing, purisa bhava (male) or itthi bhava (female)
  is determined at the very beginning of pregnancy. The determining
  factor is of course, one's past kamma. The female chromosome is called
  itthi bhava rupa; the male chromosome purisa bhava rupa. These bhava
  rupas, chromosomes, dispersed all over the body, determine the
  physique, organs, behaviour and characteristics in the male and female
  respectively.
Comment: Interesting, wouldn't that imply an unbalance between male and female which would contradict [Fisher's principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle)?
Comment: No it won't be an issue. There are innumerable amount of sentient beings that live if we consider all the humans,animals,insects, microscopic creatures, hell creatures, devas, brahmas etc. Imagine how many beings would dwell inside a single human being. Not all of them are born like that because of the bad karma from violation of the third precept. When the conditions are right anyone of them can be born either as a male or female keeping the above said ratio.
Answer: I'd say, your overall energy configuration is a result of karma, which in its turn is a product of your predominant state of mind. Outwardly, energy configuration manifests as circumstances, and inwardly, as character. This character includes traits such as a certain balance of masculinity and femininity, but also a bunch of other, harder-to-pinpoint characteristics. Depending on the exact combination of outer and inner factors, you may be a masculine man, a feminine woman, a masculine woman, a feminine man, or anywhere in between.
Tracing phenotypes back to their karmic roots is like tracing the ocean water back to the rivers it came from, or to use a modern analogy, like decomposing a product of prime numbers back to its factors. While the opposite is pretty much trivial: if you follow the ocean-bound stream down, you are guaranteed to get to the ocean. What's important is to understand that it is your predominant state of mind that shapes your reality. As long as you get a feeling of directionality, even a rough idea of what Buddhism calls "right" (samyak), by cultivating it over a long enough period of time, however imperfectly, you are guaranteed to get to Enlightenment.
Answer: According to the Fifth Method of Dependent Origination, there are five causes and five results.  The five results are the five khandas.
The five causes are ignorance, craving, clinging, formations, kamma force.
This is listed in the Vissudhimagga.  Path Of Purification (2011 PDF, p601)
These are broken up into two consciousness wholesome and unwholesome for humans who are lucky to have a wholesome factor in their near death moment of the immediate past life.  Humans always have wholesome kamma force and sankhara (formations)
The unwholesome is the craving consciousness.  It includes the ignorance mental factor which is part of craving.  Clinging is repeated craving.  So all three are nearly the same type of unwholesome mind.
Got that?
Wholesome with unwholesome do not mix together, but the unwholesome mind can "surround" the wholesome mind.
So when you did something good in a past life, like something of generosity, you wished to do something (that requires a body) or you wished to become someone (ignorantly).  So someone who is male previously wished for becoming male.  Someone who is female previously wished to be female.  Whether or not one has enough kamma to get that wish is another story.
It is like a raffle ticket.  Buy more raffle tickets and you have better odds.  Do something once that is really big and many raffle tickets get put into the pot.  Habitual kamma is a good way to get that wish.  Heavy kamma like what Bill Gates did, will also help.  (His is both because of his continued involvement, but he may wish other things).  Bill Gates probably did something similar in a past life and kept wishing to help other people (to do that with a male body).  Then the opportunities (supporting kamma) from other kammas helped support that wish.  Read "Outliers" and you will see it was not chance for him to become so rich.
Often people switch sexes and species, but I imagine that most people wish with the same sex perception because they do not imagine otherwise.  I suspect most sex changes happen via the animal realm.  For instance, a dog may want the conditions to have food and whoever feeds him may be the gender resultant next life gender.  There are of course humans who wish for sex changes and even do so even in their current life too!   So it does happen as humans for future births as well.
There is a wheel publication by Venerable Nyantiloka called "Fundamental Themes".  It is not easy to read, but it is correct.
"The Workings of Kamma" by Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw explains this too.
There is a chapter on kamma in Ven. Narada's book..  "The Buddha and His Teachings". I think a pamphlet was made from that chapter too.  This is a great book for newbies.
You might be able to find a meditation manual on dependent origination by Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw.  It is called "The Fifth Method". It is not readable for the average person.  However the first section might be interesting.  It is posted it to my website..unlisted.  The rest should be easy to find for free.

I will be hopefully writing a readable version of the fifth method in my Abhidhamma Lessons located at http://Subhuti.net.tf .  It is planned for Lesson #9 and cumulative knowledge is assumed from lesson #1 onward.  I am currently writing lesson #8 on mental factors.  My guess is that it will be released sometime in November.  I announce new lessons via gplus or Facebook.  I will try to remember to update this entry when/if it gets finished.
Answer: Here is an honest answer to this question based on facts or observations or both. In all religions (the original versions not the altered ones) and in spiritual views vibrations of beings indicate how "divine" or "heavenly" or "more gifted by the creator" they are. Vibration of non-human animals and very very young children is the highest, making them more "clean/innocent/angelic/pure/close to the source energy" or whatever you want to call it. That's why we humans even being blind to such holy facts, still feel their energy and if we're healthy in the head, have some fondness of them and feel good when these beings are around us. After them the vibration of more innocent people is the highest and generally speaking women tend to have much higher vibrations overall than males.
Anything that's regarded as vice and wickedness and bad brings the overall vibration of people lower, anything such as cruelty, violence, hatred, being sex-crazed, taking lives, torturing others, bad intentions,etc. Anything that's regarded as angelic like kindness, good intentions, compassion,etc. raises the vibration. Statistics are facts. As a result this could be proven factually as well. Men are proved to suffer from far more vices (along with mental illnesses that could lead to evil deeds) than women overall, making the staggering wide gap in committing felonies. Testostrone itself makes one more prone to not use their brains if they're wicked inside. Men have more of that, women have only small amounts of it in their blood.
Accordingly, in all original version of holy texts also it's emphasized how women and girls are the "cores" of life, who make the world go around, who are guaranteed to go to heaven as long as they don't do wrong deeds, who must be treated like the sun, bringing life and warmth and safety to the universe. As a result, a being who's deserving to be punished simply CANNOT be reborn as a female AS part of their punishment.
Aside from that, being a woman by itself seems to, in many ways, prevail over being a man. Any misery women had to suffer throughout the history of mankind was forced on them by men, remember that. Otherwise, should we consider a being independently, a woman by herself would make a scene similar to the happy-go-lucky scenes from Disney cartoons with her enjoying herself with the non-human animals around her, the nature and the warmth that generates from within her. A woman's mind is also proven to be more "free", enabling her to enjoy her thoughts, dreams, wishes, etc. more than men generally speaking. Women live longer too on average, giving them more time to complete their missions here on earth. With XX being more strong since neither Xs have been mutated, babies with XX are also stronger in physical strength and combating illnesses and maturing.
Not to mention that a woman has the chance to give life and her baby's entire world WILL revolve around her for some time, enabling her to influence other people more than men generally speaking. Hence, being a woman on its own is even more likely to be part of good karma. As someone else said, system of karma is complex. It could possibly be said that, considering the surroundings, that view might differ to a small extent meaning if someone's to be punished, they'd be born at a time at a place with certain gender that's suffering some obvious disadvantages, e.g. a woman is Saudi Arabia now, a man in the Amazon tribes who enslaved men and buried male babies alive. OR it might be due to them being connected to a loved-one who was "spawned" in that situation OR they could be put there to make a far better life in the next life (basically paying it forward).
So by no means and in no way one could claim what you claimed, that "if one's a woman, they're being punished". In fact the other way around seems to be more accurate IF we're talking differences between karmic effect of genders since should men not be around or in a woman's life, the said woman would most likely have a much easier and happier life than if she was a man and she, just by being born a girl has the ability to impact her surroundings and people way more than a male.
As technology is progressing, as you see, it's possible for women alone to give life while such a thing is purely impossible for only men since men have XY and the offsprings would most likely never live enough to even develop internal organs (even if some functioning uterus magically fell off the sky) and with how things are as you see, an objective mind observing could conclude that it's men who need women not the other way around.
Last but not least, let's not forget that we're talking karma here, the tit for tat, eye for an eye, you reap what you sow, divine justice, etc. system. I'm sure all sane people really would want to go back and prevent how men for many years did women wrong and committed the most vile unspeakable things to women but facts are facts. History is a collection of facts from the past. Facts never get erased or change. Having "divine justice" or even the logical order of nature in mind, men are guilty horribly and hence will have to pay for their horrible misconduct of the past. No pain and aching soul goes unanswered and as a result, especially with the times about to come, it'd be way more likely for someone who's to be punished to be born a boy for karma to take its course and "serve" them what's rightfully deserving.
As you see, I only mentioned a very few notions but even with these it's proven how your response has nothing to do with facts or even the knowledge the Source provided for us to make better decisions and be better beings. I strongly advise you to refrain from doing what you're doing as people are awakening more and more and are seeing how some (the some with major karmas to pay) have been using religion or beliefs to oppress others, steal rights,  take personal benefits, commit sins, justify sick behaviors, etc.
Answer: In the Pali suttas attributed to the Buddha, the results of kamma are two-fold, namely, "heaven" ("happiness") and "hell" ("pain & torment"). For example:

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
  reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &
  surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I
  discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
  fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
  — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who
  reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the
  influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good
  conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who
  held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right
  views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared
  in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of
  the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing
  away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
  beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
  kamma.
Bhaya-bherava Sutta

The five-fold results of kamma, namely, human (virtuous), godly (powerful), ghost (addicted), animal (without conscience) & hell (pain & torment) are more diverse descriptions of the two-fold kamma. For example:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
Nidānasutta

The Buddha applied the above results of kamma equally to both men & women. The Buddha did not teach sex is determined by kamma. For example:

Student, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is
  what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness &
  refinement... There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a
  killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing &
  slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted &
  carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death,
  he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, hell.
Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta
Comment: @Dhammadhatu Hi! I recently found this explanation from Bhikkhu Bodhi about the mistranslation of the phrase commonly quoted as "[...] only suffering...". Here it is if you're interested in it: https://tricycle.org/magazine/i-teach-only-suffering-and-end-suffering/
Comment: The Buddha said he only teachings about suffering & the cessation of suffering. The teachings of kamma, while mundane, are the same. They teach about happiness (heaven) and suffering (hell). They don't teach about the origins of gender.
Comment: I don't know how one could prove that he didn't ever teach that -- only that he taught other things besides (e.g. that both genders experience result of kamma, as you quote in this answer). And if he doesn't teach much about gender then it's difficult to say, "teaching that about gender would contradict other things he said about gender".
Comment: Thanks. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a valuable translator but doesn't really understand Dhamma. For example, in the article, BB refers to naga, a garuda, or a gan-dhabba—that is, as a celestial dragon, a celestial eagle, or a fragrance deity— yet in his SN he regards these teachings as mythology. BB doesn't have much credibility apart from as a translator. He is often agenda driven and appears to have never transcended his socio-cultural-ethnic roots. Regards. The explained what he teaches in many suttas, such as Simsapa Sutta, AN 3.61, etc.
Answer: As I know, In Buddha time no one asked that question. Personally I don't think gender is based on kamma but Sankara.
Answer: There are numerous places in Buddhist literature where it is stated that women cannot achieve enlightenment. I won't catalog these, or evaluate them either. They are mostly based on social norm, conjecture, and opinion, no matter how they are worded.
From Wikipedia: "Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, translit. karma, IPA: [ˈkɐɽmɐ]; Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths."
In the first definition of the word karma (simply action), yes, gender is determined by some kind of action in the field of manifestation. But in the second definition, that individual action in the past determines gender in the past I have never seen this convincingly argued. And in the final sense, that good or bad past karma determines a good outcome (male) or a bad outcome (female) there is no support for this in Buddha teaching.  Everything is a result of some kind of karma, somewhere. Even being on the Path, this is karma from skillfulness in your past and the generosity of teachers and sangha past. Everything, including gender, is a result of action, but only in the broadest possible sense. Karma is basically unfathomable to the human mind. We (meaning you and I) do not possess omniscience.
If your question had been "do females have Buddha Nature?" I would answer yes, they do. As do males, and as do all sentient beings. And I support the women who journey forth and seek Enlightenment.
Comment: In Theravada literature, or later? I thought the Therigata would contradict "women cannot achieve enlightenment". But see also [Can the Buddha ever be a woman?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3322/254)

Is gender a result of Kamma?


Inkscape: How to evenly space objects?

Question: I would like to evenly space these objects, i.e. having the same distance on the left and on the right side of each object. How can this be accomplished?
Answer: Use the Align and Distribute panel.

Do the shapes first. Select them and Align: Centre on horizontal axis, then Distribute: Make horizontal gaps between objects equal.
Group the shapes.
Select the black bar and the group, then do Align: Centre on horizontal axis, and Align: Centre on vertical axis.
Comment: Can you align and distribute objects on the fly, like how PowerPoint does? Say I want to fix the distance between object A and B, and want C to have that same distance with B. Selecting the three and distribute the distance will change the distance between A and B
Comment: @Ooker, sorry I don't use PowerPoint, and I've no idea what you mean by "align and distribute on the fly", or what it can do. In Inkscape's Align and Distribute dialog, there's a "Relative to" dropdown which may have options that might help. It might be better to ask this as a new question, and show an example of what you are trying to achieve.
Comment: The spacing between the red objects is not the same as the spacing between the left (right) object and the left (right) edge of the black box.
Comment: @Geremia the OP didn't actually mention the spacing between the objects in the question being the same as the distance to the edges of the black box. If you want to do that, you'd likely need a different method.  If this is what you are looking for you should ask as a separate question.
Answer: You need to use the align and distribute dialog.
In order to get equal spacing between sides and between objects, you probably need 5 objects: 2 vertical lines with 0 stroke width on the sides of the black rectangle, plus your 3 icons.
Select the 5 objects, and in the Align and distribute dialog select the option for equal horizontal spacing.

Inkscape: How to evenly space objects?


Inverse kinematics with joint contraints

Question: I have a manipulator having 4 revolute joints with some movement limitations. So, when I apply inverse kinematics, I'm getting results which are out of limits. Please provide me an algorithm that implements inverse kinematics considering joint limitations.
Answer: 4 joints gives you 4 degrees of freedom only. Therefore, if you use inverse kinematics on the full 6 degrees of freedom, not all positions have a solution, and if it does, it there is generally only one unique solution.
I am therefore assuming that you are only trying to fix some of the positions, for example, x, y and z coordinates, but not the orientation (the 3 rotation axes) of the end effector.
It is a non-linear system, however, at any point, you can linearise it. It is likely that the inverse kinematics applied already repeatedly linearises the problem and performs some type of gradient descent.
To alter a solution, you can find the null-space of the linearised system of equations, and use that vector to modify your solution towards the joint limits.
To do this, you simply differentiate your system of equations to obtain a linearisation, so for example, you get:
$\Delta \alpha \vec{a}+\Delta \beta\vec{b}+\Delta \gamma\vec{c}+\Delta \delta\vec{d}=
\left[\begin{matrix}\vec{a}&\vec{b}&\vec{c}&\vec{d}\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}\Delta \alpha \\\Delta \beta\\\Delta \gamma\\\Delta \delta\end{matrix}\right]
=
\left[\begin{matrix}\Delta x\\\Delta y\\\Delta z\end{matrix}\right]$, where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ are the angles of the revolute joints, with appropriate coefficients.
Finding the null-space means finding the $\Delta \alpha$, $\Delta \beta$, $\Delta \gamma$, $\Delta \delta$ such that $\Delta x, \Delta y, \Delta z = 0$. You can do this easily (choose from gaussian elimination, matrix divide etc.)
If you modify the angles by a small multiple of the null-space vector over many iterations, you should eventually get within the joint constraints (if it is possible). You just need to decide on the direction (check each angle, and if it is not within range, it should provide the appropriate angle).
If your inverse kinematics algorithm/code takes initial joint angles to start it off, you can put the new joint angles back in here so that the x, y and z positions don't drift away from the desired positions. This also allows you to take larger steps with the null-space vector (which otherwise tends to make the position tracked start to become less inaccurate).
In some cases, the null-space may contain more than one vector. This would occur if you only wanted to fix two of the degrees of freedom. In this case, in each iteration, you can modify using only one or both of the vectors. Similar logic can be applied to get the angles within the constraints - just decide on the direction in which to apply each vector by checking if each revolute joint angle is within the constraints, and if not, it will give you a direction to apply the vector.
Answer: An iterative IK solver is capable of dealing with many kinds of constraints. I have already talked about this kind of solver in a previous answer.
The basic algorithm would look something like this:
Move each joint to it's halfway position

loop while arm is far from target
{
    calculate gradient vector
    add gradient vector to arm position vector
    if any joints are beyond their range, move them back into their range.
}

The nice thing about the iterative solver is that it can also handle 'soft' constraints. For example, you might want a humanoid arm to maintain a comfortable looking posture where possible. Or you might prefer to keep joints away from their end stops. In that case, you can simply add those constraints into the loop
Move each joint to it's halfway position

loop while arm is far from target
{
    calculate gradient vector
    add gradient vector to arm position vector

    calculate comfort vector
    add comfort vector to arm position vector

    if any joints are beyond their range, move them back into their range.
}

In this case, the comfort vector is the direction in which to move all of the joints so that the arm appears more comfortable.
A fuller explanation of this can be found on my old web site: The good-looking textured light-sourced bouncy fun smart and stretchy page.


Why was Tony Stark so sure that Banner would return to fight?

Question: In The Avengers, despite the mess Hulk made with the ship, why was the Iron Man so sure that Dr. Banner would return to fight?
Comment: Because, d'oh, he's Tony Stark! :-) Joking aside, one could devise a deeper explanation from their chit-chat on the ship, but I believe it boils down to what I wrote in the first sentence.
Answer: Stark is shown to have taken a liking to Banner, and in their talks aboard the helicarrier, he encourages Banner to "suit up" with the rest of them.
I suppose it could be argued that Iron Man is such a good judge of character that he innately knew that Banner wouldn't let them down, but this being the arrogant Tony Stark, I think it's more likely that this confidence stems from his self-assurance, i.e. he was convinced that his little pep talk with Banner would work.
Answer: I think from their chat in the on the flying fortress, Stark gets a good insight into Banner's character. Stark therefore assumes that Banner/Hulk would step up to help the Avengers in the fight against Loki and the Chitauri.
Also, when the trace program beeps to indicate that the Tessaract is found Banner steps to the console and he is the only one who knows where the Tessaract is. Tony would probably remember this later and be sure that Banner would know where to come.


I can no longer see my comments on those particular websites

Question: I've made comments on several webpages using Facebook. However, when I log out of my Facebook account, I can no longer see my comments on those particular websites. I assume no one else can either. But when I log back into Facebook, my comments reappear. No one has responded to my comments. This happens on multiple webpages and blogs, so I assume it is not one webpage blocking me. Is there something I need to reset with my privacy settings? Does anyone know what's going on?
Answer: It might be that your comments haven't been validated and approved by the other site.  You can see when you log into the site probably due to the fact that the site knows they those are your comments.  Its likely that once the comments HAVE been approved, they'll be visible to all.
Answer: It is quite likely that you can only read comments if you are logged in. The reason most websites do this, is to avoid spammy comments to be indexed by search engines. Since those are not logged in, only the original content is indexed/archived, not the comments.


Twitter vs. Facebook vs. Google+ in terms of influence on rankings.

Question: Has anyone tested the effectiveness of social media signals from Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ as applied to influence on search engine rankings? For instance, is it better to have 100 +1's, or 100 Twitter mentions, or 100 Facebook likes?
Answer: Good question, and I do have some stats from my history of using these services to try to help you. I do use Google Analytics and my Web Hosting Provider Stats for giving out the numbers of how much traffic comes from each network.
EDIT 1
I forgot to say, the amount of likes, 1 Pluses, etc does not effect traffic. That is how many people thought that the post was good. People who actually view the post to likes and pluses does not reflect the traffic.
Facebook
Facebook does give me the most traffic of all three of the social networks. I namely advertise to groups which I am a member of. For me, those are the small technology groups. Likes, comments, and views of the Article does provide who is actually reading the article. With my two groups that I visit, I gain an average of 20 readers.
Facebook Pages is a different story. They make you pay for the views of getting your post out to people who have already liked the page. Then, to get your page out to new people, they make you pay for advertising the page to new people. So, I wouldnt recommend this method for pages.
Groups on facebook do work, pages are a money waste, but if you do have a popular page with 2000 likes or more, the stats I got from that was on average for 5 USD in one day only for boosting a post: 30 Likes, 8 Comments, and 10,000 views of that post.
My total traffic from Facebook is 40%.
Twitter
Twitter is a little harder to advertise on. Information or your post is most likely not gonna be saw by the majority of your followers. Information just flows so fast on their screen thanks to how many people you are following, unless you are on a list which filters out 10,000 followers and has you and a smaller amount of people on. For my stats, I achieved only about 2% of my total traffic coming from Twitter.
If you "boost/pay/etc" your post under a hashtag, then you may get more traffic, but I have never did this and pricing isn't really the best from what I looked into.
Google+
When it comes to using it, it is how many people have you in a circle and how many people you have in one also. My traffic from Google Plus is at unknown. I don't think I am reaching anyone, nor does half of my people really care? Not sure here sadly.
Other Comments
I hope this helps you out a lot through what I have experienced. Traffic from Facebook does help a good bit, surprisingly. If I had money to pay for the advertising on Facebook and Twitter all of the time, then we could see a lot more results from it.
Answer: A better question to ask is what is the goal of your site.
Then ask yourself where does your target audience spend most of their time online and try to get traffic from there.
It is questionable if Google would take the number of likes into account when determining the rank of your website as you can always buy likes.
I would not overstate the power of social media likes, as removing like buttons may actually increase your conversion rate.
I would however use Google authorship as that really has an impact if the searcher has a connection to the author - I did a search for a book name and a friends review came 5th. Did the same search in incognito and the review came 21st.
Do it smart, don't just mindlessly amass likes.


What is the reason for the anomalous electronic configuration of palladium?

Question: The p block elements generally have the general valence shell configuration as $$n\mathrm{p}^{1-6}\,n\mathrm{s}^{1-2}.$$ Expected electronic configuration for palladium is $$\ce{^46Pd} = \mathrm{1s^2\, 2s^2\, 2p^6\, 3s^2\, 3p^6\, 4s^2\, 3d^{10}\, 4p^6\, 5s^2\, 4d^8}.$$ But I find that it's valence shell instead is $$\mathrm{4d^{10}\, 5s^0}$$ I first thought, for achieving fully filled d-subshell, 2 electrons go to the d-subshell from s-subshell. This electron transfer should happen for all members of its group, yet only palladium demonstrates this. Why is this so?
Comment: You may check the answer given here: http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/2469/how-can-one-explain-niobium-s-weird-electronic-configuration
Comment: I strongly suggest the linked question's title be renamed from being about niobium to a more general one, because the answer to that question is a very general answer, and covers all cases neatly. Most probably, any answer to this question will almost repeat what has already been said. Hence, I've cast a close vote as duplicate.
Comment: It's double electron promotion.
Answer: The Aufbau principle states that, hypothetically, electrons orbiting one or more atoms fill the lowest available energy levels before filling higher levels (e.g., 1s before 2s). In this way, the electrons of an atom, molecule, or ion harmonize into the most stable electron configuration possible.
Electron behavior is elaborated by other principles of atomic physics, such as Hund's rule and the Pauli exclusion principle. Hund's rule asserts that even if multiple orbitals of the same energy are available, electrons fill unoccupied orbitals first, before reusing orbitals occupied by other electrons. But, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, in order for electrons to occupy the same orbital, they must have different spins.
The order in which these orbitals are filled is given by n+l rule known as Madelung Rule or diagonal rule.Orbitals with a lower (n+l) value are filled before those with higher (n+l) values where n represents principal quantum number and l represents azimuthal quantum number.
The fact that most of the ground state configurations of neutral atoms fill orbitals following this n + ℓ, n pattern was obtained experimentally, by reference to the spectroscopic characteristics of the elements.
The Madelung energy ordering rule applies only to neutral atoms in their ground state,even in some cases there are examples which show different electronic configuration than those of experimentally determined.Copper,Chromium and Palladium are common examples of this rule.
For Palladium,according to Madelung's rule, 5s^2 has lower (n+l) value i.e. (5+2=7) and 4d^8 has higher (n+l) value i.e. (4+8=12),so the 5s orbital  fills up first before 4d orbital.
Hence, Palladium shows anomalous electronic configuration.
Comment: For 5s isn't the n+l value 5+0=5? As the l value of s subshell is 0?
Comment: The answer fails to clear my question, read it carefully. It is the only element besides Niobium to transfer 2 electrons from the s subshell to d subshell..but the link by @Marko cleared my doubt a bit, and it seems I have to study it little more. Thanks @Marko! But, you would have liked to answer it, as it has a bounty!
Comment: @Aneek, if you think that Marko's answer helped you than that of mine, then go for it! :)