How can I destroy a great deal of infrastructure without killing many people?

Question: In the world I'm building, an antagonist desires to cripple humankind down to simple-living status. To do this, the antagonist has to remove all modern infrastructure. This includes buildings, electrical and informational connections, down to the electronics which run on those connections. Orbital satellites will also be taken out, though the solution(s) do not have to account for this. The process can be multistep, or however complicated it needs to be. Hypothetical technologies can be used, for this all takes place in the realm of science fiction.
Comment: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/69305/discussion-on-question-by-b-fox-how-can-i-destroy-a-great-deal-of-infrastructure).
Answer:
an antagonist desires to cripple humankind down to simple-living status [without killing people]

This is impossible.
Modern society is a highly integrated web of sophisticated transport and production systems, most notably in terms of agriculture, water, sewage and waste, and materials distribution (roads, rail, air, sea).  One you remove these people will start starving - you'd have a widespread famine in days.  Diseases like cholera and dysentery would become rampant.  This is what happens in areas affected by large natural disasters like earthquakes and extreme weather events.
On top of that the health system would collapse.  I'm sure doctors and nurses would work themselves ragged to try and cope, but without modern medicines, antibiotics, antiseptics, power (!), diagnostic tools and modern treatment systems they'd be back in the days of mother's dying in childbirth as a common event, people with minor wounds dying of infected wounds (sepsis) and back to pain and suffering on a huge scale.  No kidney dialysis ?  No transplants ?  No cataract operations ?  No anti-flu jabs.  No vaccination for childhood diseases - a disaster is too small a word for it.
You're going to ask how little of the sophisticated infrastructure can we survive with, I think.  The answer is more than we have now - people die now needlessly of diseases we can eradicate, die of starvation and hunger, lack of water.  We don't even feed and clothe everyone of this planet properly now.  Less is not an option - more is what we need.

Hypothetical technologies can be used, for this all takes place in the realm of science fiction.

This is meaningless.  You've removed basic infrastructure required to operate a technological society and essential just to maintain lives.  What hypothetical technologies could exist that don't require basics like electrical power and transport logistics to be effective ?
And who would develop, maintain and operate this technology ?  Certainly not the starving, dying population suffering without any modern medical aids.
Comment: @jamesqf Do forward that info to The Red Cross next time there's a major disaster, it will be a huge benefit knowing that while they're burying the dead.  Or to put it less bluntly - experience does not bare out your claim.  Also note that without all the infrastructure and industry to support this, there's no soap, no clean water (for 7 billion people !). Not even basic antibiotics or bleach - it all has to be made and transported - even the water !  Knowledge will not generate the resources required to enable your "simple" tasks to be carried out on the scale required.
Comment: @jamesqf, StephenG: knowledge without infrastructure may still help a lot, compared to *not* having the knowledge — what your examples illustrate, though, is that it still doesn't come close to as good as knowledge + infrastructure.
Comment: @jamesqf Calling these problems "urban" is a very  moderate climate, 1st world view. Where you live, this might be an urban problem. But getting enough water to hydrate your whole family, livestock and farmland can be a very different problem if you live near a desert. The lack of fuel or electricity to power pumps will not be an urban problem, neither might plenty of water be available within a days walk (or you be able to carry enough of it back in that time).
Comment: Nanoviruses that self-replicate and eat microchips. That'd be effective, wouldn't destroy all transport logistics before they've spread everywhere, and still be in "hypothetical technologies." Bonus: old engines would still work, so not all transport is destroyed. edit: never mind, OP's edit rules this out.
Comment: In fact destroying microchips (and hence computers of all sorts) *would* cripple all modern transport infrastructure and particularly transport logistics on the scale required to maintain our lives.  As a trivial example, consider what happens to city traffic when even a small part of the traffic light system fails and now make that country wide.  Complete gridlock.  The effect on hospitals, police, ambulance and fire departments would be catastrophic and kill many people.  Microchips keep us alive in a very real sense.  You would also destroy the financial system and online data.
Comment: @jamesqf: They are urban problems, to be sure. But a very large percentage of humans live in urban areas, and if you rapidly destroy the technological underpinnings of cities, people will die.
Comment: Not as bad as you'd make out.  A lot of things are just a matter of knowledge: e.g. if you know that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases, then  simple sanitation is enough to greatly reduce deaths in childbirth, stop cholera & dysentery, reduce sepsis in wounds, &c.
Comment: @StephenG yes, it'd definitely destroy modern transport infrastructure, just not *immediately*, as the virus would need time to propagate (which it would, effortlessly). I should have been clearer on that.
Comment: @StephenG nit-picking on traffic lights - there are established rules of the road for traffic light failures, and while they may cause delays, it's hardly chaos when the power is out. The real gridlock would come from the huge numbers of stalled vehicles which stopped due to failure of their onboard computers.
Comment: @barbecue the power is rarely (ever?) out for days on a citywide scale, never mind a countrywide or worldwide scale.
Comment: @StephenG: Sorry, but the Red Cross and similar organizations already know these things, and apply these very principles in disaster recovery.  Which is why you don't very often see major epidemics or large numbers of deaths in childbirth associated with them.   Also most of the problems you mention, like water transport, are urban problems.  If I want water I can walk a hundred yards to the creek, unbolt the cap of my well, or worst case there's a lake with trillions of gallons of drinkable water within a day's walk.  (Like traffic lights, it's an urban problem.)
Comment: @Ross Presser: Yes, that's it exactly.  Without a certain level of technology, particularly food transport & distribution but also water supply & sewage treatment, most of the urban population will die.  I'm talking about what sort of world the mostly non-urbanized survivors could build, having knowledge but non-working tech.
Comment: @Tim my comment had nothing to do with power outages. I was talking only about traffic lights losing their controlling system without losing power.
Comment: @barbecue traffic lights are rarely out for days on a citywide scale.
Comment: @tim again, irrelevant, because as I stated originally, it was a nitpicking point about traffic light behavior in the absence of controllers.
Comment: @barbecue As I said, the standard behaviour around traffic lights for what happens when one is out works. That behaviour certainly would not work if all traffic lights in the world are out.
Comment: @tim Why not? What about having ALL lights out versus only some would cause humans to behave irrationally at any given light?
Answer: Diplomacy
The body count is really going to depend on how long humanity has to prepare.

Hi, glad to meet you, the reverse not so much.  We're the galaxy's big bad and you just got on our radar.  Pro tip, don't be on our radar.  Listen, we consider your technology a threat. We're going to, how do you say, bomb you back to the stone age.
However your society is so unagrarian this would kill almost all of you, especially with your nuclear reactors cooking off, so we're looking for alternatives.
Give us a plan to wind your society back to an agrarian cusp-of-steam era, sailing ships and canal mules, refrigeration and epoxies are ok and keep your medical miracles... We'll let you keep your infrastructure long enough to let the existing humans live out their lives as long as you drop breeding down to a sustainable level.  Show us the plan and we'll let you work it for the next 80 years.  Or else. Your call.

Maybe not to that extremes, but active management of the event will greatly reduce casualties vs. just randomly breaking stuff.
There is a real problem that if you sever technology too fast, the nuclear reactors will break.  Even on the new Gen-3+ reactors, the "prevent meltdown" interval is only widened (refill the water tanks every 48hrs).  Any reactor flat out neglected will full-on Chernobyl eventually*. Battle damage can greatly hasten this.
Chernobyl left trace contamination all over Europe, which didn't impact life too badly, but if 100 reactors all blew, the trace contaminations would stack. This would really screw up the planet.
If you don't want that to happen, you need to cajole the plant operators into cooperating with a plan to shut down, wait for the fuel to cool enough to handle, unload it, and place it into some sort of long-term storage regime, which the aliens may be better at.   Once the spent fuel is gone, bomb away, the Israelis do all the time.

* It's widely believed "safer" Western reactors can't explode like Chornobyl. That applies to ordinary operation.  That doesn't apply to a situation where the operators are killed or disappeared.  It also misses the point: while the initial explosion was bad, that was only a local problem.  What really messed up Europe was the fires that followed, and these were fires unlike Fukushima's H2 hydrogen explosions.  The only good thing we can say is that a Western reactor won't have an initial explosion unless it's directly attacked. Other than that, Western defense-in-depth only puts more belts and suspenders in the hands of experienced, competent operators.  If the operators are dead, then in 2-5 days, the safety systems run out of water, decay heat chews a hole in containment, oxygen gets in, and the fire begins. Unlike Chernobyl, where a superpower went all-in to contain the damage, in this scenario, nobody does anything.  So our baked PWR will actually create a mess much worse than Chernobyl.  So I stand by my statement.
Hopefully our aliens will appreciate this, having a few Exclusion Zone National Parks on their home planet, and take special care not to mess things up.
Comment: Agreeing with fgysin, if we got 80 years we'd spend the first 79 on squabbling on whose fault this is. Unless the aliens don't mind busting the first few heads to get the message across.
Comment: I can't see this working... Look at climate change: essentially the smartest 99.99% of climate scientists tell the entire world "guys, here is a 50 year plan we absolutely _need_ to stick to in order to not screw everything up for the next hundreds generations". What does the international community do? Diddly f**** squat, that's what. B/c everybody thinks that maybe just _they_ might get away with it...
Comment: @Borgh i presume such a show of strength.   If I were the aliens I would show up in ships that were dead ringers for the ones in Independence Day, and the L.A. ship would launch one fighter who would shoot Will Smith.
Answer: Removing the infrastructure with a minimum of human loss isn't that hard, but the consequences will kill hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, within a year.  But, first things first.

Electrical: Power stations are not quickly built.  Knock out the hydroelectric dams, the nuclear power stations, and the coal stations, and you've eliminated about 75% of the world's electrical power.  The nature of primary electrical distribution is such that far more than 75% of the planet will be blacked out (undersupplying a load disconnects or burns out the supply).
Water: Quick research did not reveal what percentage of the planetary potable water supply is contained in the dams we just blew up.  I'm going to guess at least a third.  However, since potable water distribution in urban areas requires pumping stations, killing the power killed the water right along with it.
Gasoline: No one really knows who said "civilization is three meals away from anarchy" (or anything similar), but the quote is basically right nonetheless.  Destroy the world's refineries and you've stopped the world's transportation.  The amount of food consumed in a city each day is AWE INSPIRING.  No trucks, no food, no civilization.
Heating Oil & Natural Gass: This is easier than it sounds.  Almost no cities have redundant oil and gas distribution networks.  Many rely on trucking for distribution.  We've already stopped the trucks, so all that's left is to bomb the gas trunks in the cities that pipe natural gas and there's no heat.

Just with those four issues alone I've (very simplistically) technologically reduced the world to the early 1800s.  The problem is what happens next.
23% of the world's population lives in cities of 1 million inhabitants or more.  They're all dead in three months.  This is because the nearby countryside cannot absorb anywhere near that many people.
55% of the world's population live in urban areas.  Nearly all of them are dead in three months for the same reason stated above.  That's basically half the world's population.
While more than half the world lives in areas that don't see snow (or much snow), the colder it gets in the winter, the more likely you're dead.
At a guess, within one year of this humane destruction, at least 2/3 of the world's population is dead... and probably a lot more.
You can't remove infrastructure without a price.  It's more humane to just kill everyone.  (Assuming "humaneness" (is that a word?) is the reason the aliens didn't want to kill the people.)
Comment: This answer is suspiciously useful to alien Invaders...
Comment: @GnP This site as a whole is full of things that could be exploited by a mad government or alien invaders to wipe out entire civilizations. Maybe we should rename ourselves as EvilMasterminds.SE...
Comment: @T.Sar That was the original suggestion. The more practical members of the council decided we'd get more responses if we presented ourselves as creators instead. Funny thing, PR campaigns. They work!
Comment: With water (in the UK), the water reservoir which may or may not include damns (if they do, they might be quiet small), and those damns that do exist, do not necessarily include generators: they can predate electricity in a lot of cases. However the pumping mechanisms of the water almost certainly are electrified (even if they do have backup generators etc). I also understand that the 'north' of the uk has more reservoirs then the south, which is an interesting dynamic when it comes to droughts, especially as the population is inverse of that.
Comment: If you knock-out the nuclear plants (or the grid and fuel for generators), expect lots of meltdown problems too. The cores are too hot with lots of short-term radioactive products to survive without active cooling. I.e., this is what happened at Fukushima, no grid, no diesel generators, meltdown happens soon.
Comment: I love how you answered this like you were in the process of it and explaining it to your new protégé
Comment: @GaryWalker On the "plus" side, the death tolls from the loss of infrastructure mean that any casualties from the nuclear plants melting down is going to be a rounding error at worst...
Answer: Keep it "simple" - escaped nanobots that munch on metal and concrete and they multiply at some insane rate. They feed and breed. They don't care for organic material (humans, or our food..), but construction material and metal? Yummy!
EDIT: @PCSgtL suggestion is a great one! The nanobots may not just need to provide antibiotics, they could be the antibiotics. Working inside the humans to keep them healthy. Somewhere along the line, the nanobots determine they can share small amounts of their energy with the humans to keep them alive as well.
Comment: Nano bots are the way to go. Update your answer to have them also provide food/standard antibiotics ala manna from heaven and you've got everything wrapped up in a nice little bow.
Comment: The antagonist offers the nanobots as a means of improving the well-being of humanity (eternal life?). Everyone jumps at this chance and within months nearly everyone is infested with these things. Then the antagonist flips the switch and suddenly the nanobots start to destroy the modern world.

And the now eternal humans can only sit and watch civilisation collapse.
Answer:
'In the world I'm building, an antagonist desires to cripple humankind
  down to simple-living status. ' While preserving life as much as possible.

If you leave this as your goal, and leave the actual knowledge intact, then the answer is much simplified. If you forget about the destruction of physical property, buildings and such, and limiting it to reducing humans down to simple living standards, then it is pertinent to remember that up until 50 years or so ago, this pretty much described 70% to 80% of the human population. Most answers here suggest that the standard of living of the entire world is equal to that of the Western nations, and that we can't possibly live like, well, 80% of the population used to live (and now, perhaps, 40% still does). Just ask someone in rural China if survival is possible under such conditions.
So, we are just reverting back to 150 years or so ago. The physical structures that people live in are inconsequential. What matters is the technology.
The simplest and surest way to revert humans to a simple living status is through massively intensive and repeated EMP attacks covering every meter of earth. Say every hour for a week, then daily. Totally fry all electrical and electronic systems. Totally melt all motors, generators, and transformers.  Every car and vehicle electrical system fried. All electrical lighting systems permanently darkened. And do it repeatedly, for a year, so no repairs could be made. Wave after wave of total electrical system destruction. Even copper plumbing in houses, valves and such, would be melted and the solder joints broken. Massive water leaks in every building. Anything magnetic that conducts would have huge electrical surge currents induced in them, raising their temperatures. The entire earth would be one huge magnetic induction cook top.
So, apart from fires that would be started, not much damage to buildings. Except for burns and electrocution, humans would remain unscathed. People would still have shelter. Food would still be grown.Climate would remain undisturbed (except for global warming, because all heat and energy would come from burning fossil fuels). Transportation would return back to horse and buggy. Houses would be heated by coal. Lighting would be by oil lamps. Your biggest problem would be manure, smoke, and pollution.
But certainly the slums of Calcutta prove that humans could survive such conditions. Just not pleasantly. But I take it that is your goal.
Comment: "Just ask someone in rural China if survival is possible under such conditions" But such a person doesn't *already depend* on infrastructure, which is the main problem in highly populated areas. You can't treat suddenly losing 10 pounds as equivalent to slowly gaining 390 and then suddenly losing 400.
Comment: @JustinThyme Did you really just say "Anyone who knows anything about [subject] would [view of state of subject]"? Sources please! :-)
Comment: @Jack  That's the point. probably 70% of the current earth's population DOESN'T depend on the technology infrastructure. Only the West would suffer.
Comment: @JustinThyme can we get a source for that 70%? And the claim that only the west would suffer?
Comment: @JustinThyme I don't see how killing "only" 30% of all humans counts as destroying infrastructure without killing many people. And given that Asia contains several cities far more dense and populous than any Western city, I don't see how this would only affect the West. Distribution of wealth is not a good proxy for distribution of people reliant on infrastructure.
Comment: @JustinThyme I think a lot of people would find that statement very confusing. You might want to edit your answer to have more detail about what you mean by "Western nations".
Comment: Your point about relative levels of survival is valid. However, we would not be 'just reverting back to 150 years or so ago'. In the 1870s the world population was less than a fifth of its current level, global urbanisation was incipient rather than well advanced and we hadn't depleted vast amounts of the easily accessible, raw materials that fueled the development of modern society.
Comment: I believe the gradual EMP is the answer.  Key word is 'gradual'.  If the threat is known beforehand with relative certainty, humanity can prepare for it with redundant mechanical systems to replace the electronic ones.  Most likely the mechanical systems would be designed to only provide bare minimum services, which is what the OP is after.
Comment: @ AytAyt See [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Geography_(journal)) journal for data. Of course, [this](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2116.html) is my favorite.
Comment: @AytAy Of course, for those who do not like to read through lots and lots of data, here is the [condensed version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth) with lots of simple graphs. But, for a more in-depth study, see [Population, Resources, and Energy in the Global Economy: A Vindication of Herman Daly's Vision](http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/13-03HarrisDaly.pdf)
Comment: @Jack Anyone who knows anything about China would be jard pressed to say that urban China has not become a member of 'the West' capitalistic group.
Comment: @wizzwizz4  The comment about urban China having become a member of the 'Western Capitalistic Club' is in response to Jack's comment 'And given that Asia contains several cities far more dense and populous than any Western city, I don't see how this would only affect the West.'  and my comment 'Only the West would suffer'. It clarifies that modern Asian urban populations have pretty much joined the West in terms of capitalistic hegemony, and have little resemblance to rural China. Bejing is to all intents and purposes a cookie-cutter duplicate of any modern European or American city.
Comment: Of course I wouldn't expect Americans to understand that. They generally do not fall into the category of 'anyone who knows anything about China'. The West never has, and was never intended, to represent a geographical compass point as much as a political-economic axis.
Answer: Hmm ... something's got to give.  You can't have both simple living status and not many deaths.  The world is so interconnected, and we depend so much on this, that I fear that many would not survive without this infrastructure.  So for the sake of the story -- and how many hypothetical people has WB.SE slain anyway? -- I'll assume that we'll err on the side of breaking modern civilization.
Now since we are kinder, gentler, passive-aggressive antagonists, we shall try very hard not to directly kill anyone, and let the ripple effect do the dirty work.
Here's the plan:  we will destroy long-range transport!
First -- wipe out all ocean-going ships with our orbital lasers/missiles/etc.  Can't have specialization of manufacture, that is not simple living.  And airplanes too.  This'll cause direct casualties, and we are evilly sorry.  But it has to be done, to force all manufacturing to be done from local resources.
Second -- attack rail junctions from the air.  Also target any moving train engine.  Motive power is our enemy.
Third -- to the extent budget allows, attack all bridges, highway interchanges, and above all repair trucks.
Fourth -- don't forget to snap those undersea internet cables!
Fifth -- let's see if we can locate electrical infrastructure.  Power plants, transmission grid take priority.
Sixth -- any leftover large engineering works.  Dams (drill them, don't blow them, so the flooding is slower).  Canals; especially Suez, Panama, and Erie.
Seventh -- target all fertilizer plants, and ag machinery factories with a blazing fury.
Eighth -- this is what we call "maintenance mode".  Guard against rebuilding of #1-#7, and as opportunity permits, slag any active smokestacks.
The goal here is to eliminate all long-range transport, making each region dependent on its own resources.  There will be less specialization, so fewer goods and services will be available.  As high-yield agriculture fails, more and more people will be forced to become farmers.  (Oh, there will be a mass die-off from the cities, but we the squeamish antagonists cannot be blamed!)  iPhones will not be available at any price.
Side-note:  this plan depends of course on neutralizing the armed forces of Earth.  If this is not practical, we'll have to shrug into our lab coats and re-plan.
Side-note:  I really, really wanted The Plan to include damming up the Straits of Gibraltar, but in the end decided that that would be too expensive and difficult.
Comment: The loss of high-yield agriculture won't mean that more people need to become farmers, it will mean starvation. If we return to low-intensity agriculture, the current worldwide arable land cannot feed 7 billion people, billions of people must starve in such a scenario.
Comment: @Peteris I daresay both effects would happen. People would return to the land to try to make up for the hyper-efficient ag we have now, but it wouldn't be enough...
Answer: There are already natural and hypothetical disasters which can a similar effect. You don't need to specially target everything, and you could perfectly well leave small computers and mobile phones alone. After all, how useful are they to the average person without internet? You don't have to take 100% of technology away, just take away such a critical mass that they are nearly useless.
Earthquakes
The solution requires some futuristic technology or experience, but you said that was fine, so why not create extreme shifts inside the Earth? If it's strong enough, it can result in massive earthquakes all around the glove. Even if mobile phones are OK, there will be no network, no power, no transportation, no electricity, no water supply... This happens on small scales periodically, and it destroys the area quite utterly, with close to no recourse. People are left to fend on their own until a nearby well-resourced area is able to assist them with rebuilding.
So I guess it depends on whether or not you consider the sudden failure of a large supporting structure like a building or large natural gas fires to be "direct killing" or not. If you do, then a gradual increase in magnitude over the course of a few days would quickly get people to evacuate buildings, before it gets to the inevitable power required to take them down.
Hurricanes
A strong enough shift in the Earth's climate can result in very powerful winds across the globe. The speeds required to cause massive flooding and topple all large objects (buildings, cell towers, etc) is far under the amount required to kill an individual directly.
Electromagnetism
Create a small magnetar near Earth? Detonate a hundred thousand pure-fusion (zero fallout) nuclear bombs in the upper atmosphere? Weaken the Earth's magnetosphere and let it get hit by a powerful coronal ejection? These will take out all but the best shielded electronics. A powerful enough one will even bypass EMI shielding for sensitive equipment (airplanes, military and medical devices, etc). This may or may not be acceptable, as it will leave roads intact, but there will certainly be a shortage of vehicles old enough to be trivial to repair after such damage.
For bonus points, keep providing EMP bursts once a day, indefinitely. Can you imagine trying to maintain a megalopolis without computers? There will still be people who can maintain a large building, but it will not scale without computer assistance.
Environmental destabilization
What are insects good for? If you killed all the insects in the world, you wouldn't be living the bug bite-free life. You'd be covered in carrion, dead animals, poorly decaying plant matter. People could still eat plants, but there would be virtually no agriculture anymore. More species, not even counting insects, would go extinct than in any of the great mass extinctions of old. While this won't directly interfere with technology, it will create a situation that technology is not at all capable of dealing with. What good are airplanes if the global panic is preventing the airlines from functioning?
Microorganism that feeds on plastic
Some species of bacteria have been discovered that can metabolize polyethylene terephthalate, one of the most common plastics. If you were to create an extremely hardy, fast-reproducing and fast-adapting microorganism that can metabolize a wide-range of artificial substances such as rubbers and plastics, humans themselves would not be directly affected, but nearly all infrastructure would quickly be damaged to the point of being unusable. A large building cannot be built without plastic, even if the structure itself does not contain much.
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding *guest*! Nice first answer. If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Also [Why should I register my account?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/44557/why-should-i-register-my-account) might be interesting for you. By registering you can easily keep track of your contributions and collect privileges, so that you for example can vote on stuff or comment everywhere. Have fun on the site!
Answer: Others have covered the means of destruction.
I'd like to point out that you can actually avoid a massive die-off, if you provide - and keep providing - the food - and water - yourself.
For that, you need the means to produce and distribute it, which requires massive infrastructure you'll need to keep, and keep people from commandeering. A robot army comes to mind. The irony and hypocrisy will be quite dramatic.
This will look more like a standard tyrannical dystopia than to a post-apocalypse, but it solves the die-off issue.
If you also provide essential medicines (think vaccines and antibiotics), the deaths will be really low. Another alternative is to cure all infectious disease with applied nanotech just as you destroy the infrastructure, or to start with a world that already cured them.
Answer: Genetically modified Insects that have a short life span and contain no procreation drivers;

Crazy Ant (Nylanderia fulva) so that it now eats electrical equipment
rather then just be attracted to it.
Termites and Sand Bees that can eat wood and concrete respectively could destroy buildings at a fast pace.
Aphids that eat plastics.

That takes out electrics and all dependent equipment and all forms of shelter including tents.  Food and water that is persevered in plastic wraps and modern forms of transport (Planes, Trains and Automobiles all require plastic somewhere even if only for insulation between electrical components)
The actual attack won't kill many people, a few in the electrical fires and the collapsing buildings, a few in the train, plane and automobile wreaks that would litter the world but the numbers even though in the millions would fit in to the not many category as a percentage of the total population.
However as mentioned in all other comments and answers the death toll would reach about 80% within a few days to weeks, quickly rising as people dependent on the technology died off quickly, mostly those with medical conditions that have also been mentioned but I'd like to add insulin dependent diabetics and also those who choice suicide either because they no longer have there medication or just because it's less painful then starving to death.
Then more with the starvation, riots and fights over the last tin of Baked Beans in Benfleet that would occur, parents killing the Jones from number 74 for there supply of water and stale biscuits to feed their staving children.
Also probably would also be a bad time to be a family pet, not a lot of meat on a cat and it's stringy but after three days of nothing poor old "PussyWussy" is going to start looking mighty fine in the starving mans minds eye, with or without fried onions.
Farming would collapse, it all needs modern tech to work.  Most of the animals would also die, milk cows would probably go first as they need milking twice a day by the machines that no longer work.  Small holdings and organic farms would fair better, at least until the starving masses from the city descend upon them like two legged locust.
Then your have all those bodies slowly rotting and the diseases that spring from a large pile of rotting meat.
Within the year your be looking at 90% to 95% fatality rate at a rough guess.
Comment: Sudden dry off can kill a cow though via infections from a broken milk bladder. A modern dairy farm is more likely to experience this due to high production milk rates. At any given time, a reasonable fraction of the milk cows would survive -- production drops off as the cows are later in their lactation cycle. Restarting milk production after dryoff requires bearing another calf too. Smart ranchers will realize what a valuable asset they control and milk some cows by hand to preserve it. Dumb ranchers already went out of business.
Comment: If you suddenly dry off (stop milking) a cow, it does not kill them, they will die soon enough from lack of food and water on many dairy farms though. Those they are pasture fed with natural water source will be an attractive target for their food (both milk and meat). Cows can be milked without machines, but the distribution chains will be totally broken. A large herd produces multiple semi-truck loads of milk per day.
Answer: Referendum
Antagonist creates a party that campaigns for referendum to destroy all infrastructure and promises great gains if people vote for it. Government initially is against but then eventually decides to support the idea. Campaign against is underfunded and misrepresented.
People vote and 52% choose yes, so they demolish all the infrastructure by themselves.
Comment: Is this a jab at the Brexit campaign?
Comment: @nxall what campaign? UK was never part of EU.  We were always at war with Eurasia.
Answer: Alternate option - rather than removing the tech from the people; remove the people from the tech; force a planetary mass evacuation; then you have leeway to define what was available to the evacuees (and it doesn't have to be the same for each set of evacuees; cue class wars)
Answer: Trick us into doing it
If we don't cooperate, we'll just rebuild.
A truly advanced species that manifested as beings from a particular religion could trigger a revival. Make the new gospel's payload some kind of anti-intellectualist or survivalist screed.
Ken Liu's The Three-Body Problem describes a hostile civilization's sabotaging of Earth's science for the sake of stopping it. Making tech unreliable/dangerous could drive us away from it.
Answer: Choose the solution of the Dan Brown novel Inferno.
Reduce the population of the Earth by reducing its fertility rate significantly via a virus. As the population declines, the level of technology that it can support will fade too over a few generations, but instead of having people die from having the tech taken away from them, people won't be born and the harm from the loss of tech will be offset by the reserves accumulated by a once much larger population.
To prevent urban centers of high technology, you could engineer the virus such that it mutates at a fairly high rate but only at the moment it is transferred to a new host. The more versions of the virus you had in you, the lower your fertility would be. In a dense urban area, most people would be exposed to many strains of the virus and have very low fertility. In rural areas, you would be exposed to fewer people and so you could have slightly higher fertility. Thus, the population density that is necessary for urban areas that is necessary to maintain high technology would cease to exist in just a few generations.
Abandoned infrastructure could be demolished by a variety of means from natural disasters to robot bulldozers.
Once the human population was widely dispersed, had adapted its culture to dispersed low tech living that shunned concentrated populations, and the world hit some floor of population, a cure could be distributed via another virus or via a vaccine program.
Answer: It is an interesting concept.
As you noted, it must be a multi-step process.
And was commented, people will die.  They do anyway.
And based on the only workable theory of Darwin, environmental change will allow some species to prosper while others cannot.
You need to reduce technology in stages.
First the super computer virus that takes out the internet.  Isolate people.
Second, mini-electronic virus, eleminte computer technology without destryong things like actual car engines or electric motors for heaters.
Over some years, the people will be forced to burn wood for cooking.
As you do this, people will be forced to spread out for food and will be forced to become more independent.   Farming will become a central endeavor.
As people become more independent and able to self sustain, the next wave of terror would need to be to take out other machines.  Maybe an alien mechanized robot force that seeks out metals and either destroys them or takes them away.    That would reduce society into a world without metal machines.  No engines save water wheels.
People would be forced to live further apart and to depend more on the land than each other.
The ultimate goal will be a planetary agrarian society with no metal for machines or weapons.
Remove metal and remove electronics and you have effectively made humans as all farmers.
Unintended consequences are that armies of bullies arise and the farmers are just making food for the conquerors.   Dictators will create kingdoms and slavery will be re-instated.  Women will become slaves to the kings.  This will force people to spread out even more to get away from the war-lords and people in isolation will be prey for bandits.
This will eliminate any prosperity as there is nothing that creates markets.  Unless you make furniture or carriages, pottery, maybe clothes…..
Interestingly, you are asking how to take a prospering open trade open market society into a communistic, dictatorial one.  This is very close to the new antifa movement in the USA.   Create two classes, the serfs and the aristocrats.
Funny how you have to think logically to see the root of things.
Thank you for the question.
Comment: Anti-fascism and communism are not the same thing, but I suppose that's only tangential to the question. Still a fairly well thought-out, detailed answer.
Comment: "the USA has been on a 500 year prosperous curve"... except that the USA has only existed for 241 years. I don't think there were even any permanent colonies there 500 years ago (Native Americans aside, of course).
Comment: law of un-intended consequences.   the 'facism' we see is usually from the party that wants to alter the statis Quo.  the USA has been on a 500 year prosperous curve and only in the last few decades has chosen to move from an open market society to a totalitarian-communistic one. with book burning and elimination of facts in the media and silencing both truth as well as opposing points of view.
Comment: Columbus =  1492,    USA today = 2018,  sorry if my math was off.   the nearly constant and persistent European involvement on North America in that time has altered the extant way of life that went before.   as for the name of the land that is now North America, I have no reference for the area that pre-existed the term North America or USA.
Answer: The problem is that unless you do it over a generation destroying infrastructure will in itself kill a lot of people.
This is especially true of urban populations which are totally dependant on imports of food, medicine, raw materials and manufactured goods to sustain themselves.
Also the sheer volume of population on earth at the moment is highly dependant on industrialised agriculture and a global trade in both food itself and all the technology required to produce and distribute it.
There are also a lot of people with chronic illnesses who are only alive because they have access to modern medicine and even more so because of basic infrastructure like vaccination, basic primary healthcare and sanitation. So it's not just really high tech medicine but quite basic medical commodities like antibiotics which are made available by industrial infrastructure both for their production and distribution.
There is perhaps and argument that if you want to do this in a fairly benign way you might as well roll all the way back to a hunter-gatherer type culture as there is a fair argument that this is a better lifestyle than subsistence farming or proto-industrial societies, especially if you want to put a hard cap on technological development.  A modified Victorian Britain level might be acceptable but this would need modification to improve overall living standards and constant tinkering to keep the technology at an 'acceptable' level.
So with this in mind you would want to :

Reduce the population to a sustainable level eg by a compulsory on child policy or similar. This would take many generations to bring the population down  at a rate which isn't too traumatic plus you would need economic support for a population which a disproportional number of older people.
Regenerate true wild habitats with sustainable ecosystems to provide sufficient food for the human population. In particular this would involve returning agricultural land to forest and restoring populations of top predators.
There would also need to be a major education and training programme to give people the skills they needed to survive in their new lifestyle, many of which would need to be redeveloped from scratch. You might even want to establish a few selected pioneer populations to fully develop the needed skills.  Equally you might have to gradually 'un-learn' knowledge of the modern world.

In fact as what you really need to do is change the behaviours of whole populations and discourage technological development the best bet might be to establish a religion which encourages the behaviours you want. In fact there is a real world example of this in the shape of Amish communities, although this might not be a god model for a global population as even the Amish still exist in the context of a modern industrialised society.
Answer: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
This means of reverting the population back to simple living status also very strongly suggests a motivation for the antagonist. Imagine being subjected to constant pain due to the people around you using their electronic devices.  They don't understand, and won't stop using their devices.  What if the antagonist could make them understand?
A person with electromagnetic hypersensitivity would feel extreme discomfort in the presence of the very common EM radiation given off by nearly all modern conveniences that use AC power or generate RF signals.  When everyone on earth becomes afflicted, modern technology isn't destroyed, just made very uncomfortable to use.  Critical systems will be heroically maintained until they can be safely shutdown or non electric replacements found.  Satellites remain in the sky, but with no one willing to man the consoles on earth, they fall out of use.
This eliminates all modern vehicles except very simple pre2007 mechanical diesels like tractors which could still maintain crops,(including biodiesel fuel crops) though they would still be uncomfortable during the starting process.  Older diesel trains(not diesel electric), tractor trailers, oil and coal burning ships, could have electronics removed to maintain delivery infrastructure at reduced capacity.
Steam power remains unaffected.
Air travel would still be possible on specially modified small craft, including blimps, diesel gyrocopters, hot air baloons.  Large aircraft and air traffic control would be useless.
Modern dwellings can be maintained, but disconnected from power. Steam powered air conditioning and refrigeration could be feasible.  Natural gas delivery could be maintained.
Aluminum refining and any manufacturing process that uses electrical induction (steel forging) goes right out the window.
Wind power for mechanical pumping and solar concentrators for heating are well known worldwide and would continue to operate. But photovoltaics, what most people think of when they hear "solar panel", generate low voltage DC electricity.  That is less likely to generate an extreme reaction in someone with EM hypersensitivity.  It would be up to the author to decide if that type of power is acceptable or not and could have critical consequences.
If solar electricity is OK, then so are batteries, DC electric lights, LEDs, and potentially a wide variety of small electronics without motors or high frequencies.  Low voltage DC electronic control (slew rate limited) means that at least some automated processes can continue.  Life is basic, but still pleasant.  And you risk confusing the reader if they can't understand the difference.
If solar electricity is not OK, the rules are simpler to understand, but life takes a big hit.  The world is plunged into darkness at night which will drive people to burn up precious fuel for light. This, and the loss of every electronic control system makes for a much bleaker outlook.
The sudden loss of electronic communications would have a dramatic effect.  Local networks of pneumatic voice tubes would spring up as replacements.  Long distance and non voice local communication handled by existing fiber optic cables.  They can be tied to the local pneumatic networks with remote relay stations that require small amounts of electricity used away from people.
Suppose the antagonist(or someone known to the antagonist) discovers the cause of his electromagnetic hypersensitivity is genetic mutation caused by some specific combination of environmental factors which can be replicated worldwide.  eg. doped fallout, combined with global warming, and solar wind.
This condition has actually been reported to exist today with seriously debilitating effects, but the mechanism at work is very vague.  This lends some degree of credibility, while allowing great artistic license.
Wikipedia Hypersensitivity
YouTube BBC
YouTube National Geographic
YouTube The Feed
YouTube Fear of Smart Meters
YouTUbe FOX News
Comment: Second sentence of the article you link to, clearly states that there is no scentific evidence suggest that this is a real thing. Adding to that, it's not a bad idea.
Comment: People believe it is real enough to relocate across an ocean to get away from it and start movements to ban smart meters because of it.  It may not be provable, but it does make a good story.  Which is why I suspect the linked outlets picked up the story.
Comment: There is a book where humanity is given an enhanced sense of smell, and suddenly can't stand the odor of petroleum, chemicals, oil, etc. Similar idea.
Answer: Since modern civilization (and presumably science-fiction civilizations) all need electricity to run, an antagonist must destroy the electrical grid. Other answers state multiple methods of how the antagonist could do this. Unfortunately, (from the antagonist's perspective) the world also runs on gasoline. People would have generators to make their own electricity. For the antagonist to get around this problem he could somehow sap all of the gasoline out of the ground. The other solution would mean that the antagonist wouldn't even have to worry about this problem: there is no gasoline left, and automobiles run on an alternate fuel (such as electricity or hydrogen). There is evidence that all fossil fuels will be used before A.D. 2100, and it is predicted that all coal will be used before 2088.
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding *Tiskolin*! If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Have fun!
Answer: For the immediate, you can't destroy infrastructure without killing a lot of people. Look in your own refrigerator and cabinet: how long could what's in there last? A few days, at best.
The average city has maybe one to two weeks of food on hand, and is dependent upon rapid transport of food into the city to keep that food supply replenished. That transport is dependent upon both the provision of fuel, the availability of food produced in high volume, and safeguarding the transportation paths, all of which will fail without interlaced infrastructure. Modern society requires the efficiency of the current infrastructure to keep people fed and housed. Without that infrastructure, a lot of people would have to die before the population stabilized at a level that could be sustained with simple, crude agricultural methods.
If you destroy the infrastructure, you probably destroy the authority of the government, so large cities would quickly devolve into gang rule and food hoarding, hastening the death count. Look up episode 1 of the original James Burke Connections series... he begins with a power failure in NYC and follows a hypothetical scenario of a person trying to survive if the power was not restored. Bottom line: most urban dwellers would probably not survive for very long.
However, there is another aspect to consider - how long would humanity take to restore that infrastructure? You see, one big difference between today and the dark ages is the knowledge base. Back in the dark ages, the knowledge base was not extensive. They didn't know that spinning a coil of wire next to a magnet produces electricity, or all the things that can be done with that electricity. They didn't know that you could heat iron to very hot levels, facilitating the economical production of steel, if you used a reverberating furnace. Nor did they know that you could take that steel, build a pressure vessel and cylinder and piston, and create a steam engine that could propel your ship or trolley faster and more reliably than a horse or a sail. They weren't aware of how a fertilizer like ammonium nitrate increased food production.
In modern society, enough people know this, that a society with wrecked infrastructure would inevitably rebuild that infrastructure... because they know how to do it. If they're near an oil well, or even a tar pit, it wouldn't be that hard to set up a crude refinery to produce gasoline, using scrap metal lying around. Any surviving chemists would know how to make nitric acid from minerals, which is the basis for all modern explosives and gunpowder.
So that would be an interesting twist to the story - how the antagonist tries to keep humanity at a crude state, while the survivors set about rebuilding technology from their knowledge base, to fight back against the antagonist.
Answer: There is a fantastic book that covers this scenario called "Dies the Fire". A global event permanently changes the way energy works. Essentially any form of energy (on the Earth's surface) that goes above a certain, very low level, dissipates immediately. Guns don't work, cars don't work, electricity.
Within 3 months ~%80 of the world's population die from starvation, more die from the anarchy that ensues.
Comment: Welcome to WB:SE!  We appreciate your participation and I'd like to help you learn how to be great contributor.  This answer would benefit from more detail.  That can come from the book, but generally, answers that simply reference something else are considered low quality.  Add a link to the book summary.  Include more detail about how the energy dampner works.  Add more insight into how the dampner affects people's lives.  These kinds of things make for great answers.  We look forward to your continued participation!
Comment: Adding to JBH's comment above, see also [Are answers solely referencing novels/movies/etc. okay?](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1731/29) for a more in-depth discussion than the limited space in comments allows for.
Answer: I would use bacteria that dissolves metal! If an attack on metal infrastructures occurs then everything will fall apart! People will see the, not so fast, destruction and will take precautions. In that way you will not have so many casualties. Imagine then a small earthquake or a strong wind without the metal sustaining the buildings everything will fall apart. furthermore microchips cables devices (non plastic or organic) will be affected also. In order not to totally destroy your world you can modify your bacteria to combine its attack with oxygen. So the minerals in the ground will not be affected. The virus is living in the and scientist try to find the antidote. Every new attempt to build something with minerals will fail because the bacteria will be triggered. I thing that is a possible sci - fi scenario. Hope i help
Comment: Welcome to worldbuilding! I am confused about one thing here - viruses are generally things that go after living beings, not inorganic materials, so do you generally mean something that dissolves metal but nothing else, or is there some specific virus that behaves completely differently to the norm?
Comment: Viruses are living "things". They can only live by affecting a biological entity. So viruses are out of the discussion. BUT bacteria is a different thing. Bacteria are individual organisms whit a extreme life spam. Google water bear (it is not a bacteria it is a Tardigrade a normal organism). If you see some of its statistics it can live with no water no gravity no air and no oxygen for mounts even years. Imagine your "crazy scientist" modify those little fellas in a bioweapon. and add them in your story.
Comment: @AnagnostouJohn but you said "nanovirus" which is not bacteria. If you are changing what you mean, and saying viruses are out of the discussion, you should edit the answer to reflect that.
Comment: Ok i correct it
Answer: This is very simple. You don't remove any of it. You turn the satellites into psychological disrupting machines. Put the cities just out of reach. Let them see tons of food and give them what they need to live. There is not need to remove anything. Just cause them tons of mental pain by putting everything they desire out of reach but visible.
Answer: Use a two-punch strategy:
1. EMP Bombing
A few big nukes above the atmosphere work wonders to quickly turn all our electric toys into useless metal. Any insufficiently shielded electric devices will die. Including all the power switching technology in the electrical infrastructure as those are connected to long antenna-like lines by definition.
2. Concrete eating bacteria
Evenly distribute these across the entire atmosphere to infect all concrete based buildings. Then wait for the infrastructure to come down.
This won't kill our roads as most of these are not made from concrete, but it will kill all big buildings and bridges. Among the buildings are pretty much all factories.

What would survive?
Well, first of all humans unless they starve from the long-term impact. Also, any non-electrical luxury in existence would survive the first impact, but since the factories are crumbling, there will be replacement problems very quickly. Thus, in the first years, you will still have functional cars, ships, and airplanes.
However, a car without gas is worthless, and how do you operate the pumps at the gas station? Of course, people will try to make the best of it, and likely pump gas by hand for a while. However, they' quickly run out of gas anyway as the refineries are crumbling due to the concrete eating bacteria.
I guess, the longest running machines would be ships, as their engines use the most evil wastes from the oil refineries as fuel - they'll run fine on crude oil. And you can get at crude oil without use of concrete via offshore drilling platforms.

With this strategy, you won't have any direct deaths, "just" many indirect ones. The grade of devastation would be most visible in the cities (Which city? I only see a big pile of dust!). Farming will continue to work just fine for the most part, however, storage of grain and livestock production will experience problems due to crumbling silos and buildings.
Infrastructure will come to a slow, grinding halt:

First, EMP bombing will disrupt all electricity based transportation. This includes most trains in developed countries, and all pipeline based transportation (Pumps!).
Failing bridges will heavily disrupt land-based transportation, failing (air)ports will disrupt transportation by ship and aircraft shortly after that.
All other transportation except ships will eventually fail due to gas shortage.

In the end, the surviving humans will have to rely on what they can grow in their immediate area.
Answer: I don't have everything that you ask for, but maybe this can help you on the process of destroying the technology.
If I'm not mistaken, a strong enough solar flare can destroy all the electrical connections on earth. This would essentially kill human development. All that will be left are the buildings thenselves, because none of then will work for nothing but shelter.
there is an article about it here: https://gizmodo.com/a-nightmarish-timeline-of-what-would-happen-to-the-eart-1767042787
I don't know if pure sci-fi is acceptable, but a machine that reproduces a super flare, or that can cause our sun to produce one, might do it.
Answer: There's a swedish book called "Stjärnklart" where all electronic devices slowly and one by one stops working. When the devices are opened there's a bright dust within the curcuits.
You could go the same route of having a foreign material being introduced to earth that "sticks" to electronics and makes them unusable. This effect could be slow to mitigate the direct loss of life. Maybe even some humans try to keep their electronics alive by having to move around all the time? :-)
Comment: Welcome to WorldBuilding *Gustav*! As the question asks for Science-Fiction with hypothetical technologies I think this is a good answer. Is there any sci-fi explanation in the book about this dust? That might enhance your answer a bit. If you have a moment please take the [tour] and visit the [help] to learn more about the site. Have fun!
Comment: "foreign material being introduced to earth" - is it an elaborate handwave, or there is some technical explanation?
Answer:
At present civilization is high dependent on electricity and electronics.  A series of EMP bombs would take out most of the electronics.
We are also critically dependent on the electrical distribution system.  A transmission line is hard to guard easy to take down.  (Imagine dropping what amounts to chain shot writ large:  A couple of cannon balls connected with transmission line dropped so that they wrap the wires. This could be done with 2 people and a Cessna.  A large 5th column with a supply of dynamite could keep taking out towers.  Or thermite.  Or wrenches.  Or enough 30.06 bullets shattering insulators.
Take out all non-military grade electronics, and the electrical supply network: You don't need to remove the buildings.  Most of them become useless.  What good is a house in suburbia if the nearest creek for water is 5 miles away?  How much joy in living on the 15th floor of a city high rise?  No water.  No electricity.

Most cars don't work.  None with an electronic ignition.
Lights don't work.  Any room without windows becomes much less useful.
Elevators don't work.  Everything above the 6th floor is a major trek.
Water pumps quit.  If your city uses reservoirs on top of a hill, the water will last until the reservoir empties.  If you get your water from the river, or a well, you have at most an hour or so.
Gas station pumps won't work.
All furnaces more complicated than a wood stove quit.  No electricity.
All diagnostic machinery beyond an old style blood pressure cuff and a stethescope stop working.  Some of the indicator tests that create, destroy a dye will work (e.g. blood sugar test strips) but won't be replaceable.

What will keep working:
 * Firearms.  But no laser dots.
 * Some tractors.  There are LOTS of 30-60 year old diesel tractors.
 * Older cars.
 * Not quite as old diesel trucks.
 * Most small engines.
 * Some motorbikes.
 * Some small generaters.
 * Cordless tools.
 * Off grid islands.  E.g. Camps that use PV or wind to charge batteries with old style generators (no electronics)
 * Vacuum tube electronics.
 * Railroads may still work -- don't know how much electronics are in a modern locomotive.  But the lights and control system will not.  Mind you:  That used to work.
  * Relay based telephone switching systems.
  * Bicycles, skateboards, wheelbarrows.
  * Sewers -- but most depend on a certain ratio of water to solids.
In some cases you could put together bandaid solutions:  Bring a generator to a gas station to power the pumps.  Or drop a jet pump into the underground tank and suck it up.
Modify Greenhouses for operating theatres.  Bright light, continuous UV sterilization.
But overall most people wouldn't be able to get out of the city before they died of thirst or hunger.
Smaller towns would fare better.  A typical town of 10,000 is about 2 miles in diameter.  It's a short walk to the country side.  Farmers would want workers with their equipment largely inoperative. Refugees will do anything for a meal and a roof. Even farms are going to scramble.  Most are dependent on a well.  Few have horses.  However rigging a hand pump to a well is certainly feasible, then later setting up a windmill.
Examples:
Pol Pot evacuated the cities to the country side in one of the most massive anti-elitist moves ever.  Millions died.
In Stirling's Emberverse electricity, rapid combustion, and high pressure stopped working.  No explanation.  90% died the first year.
In Niven's Ring World series, the Puppeteers introduce a bacteria that ate supercondutor wire.  Everything stopped.


Previous Employer withheld FICA taxes. Gave me W2C after I filed for taxes

Question: Currently on F1 Visa status. Previous employer withheld FICA taxes. I realized only after filing taxes. After reaching out to them and explaining, a few months later they finally gave me a W2C but did not refund any money. I am not sure what should I do. File my taxes again with IRS? I had filed my taxes with my spouse. Please suggest how do I go about this.
Comment: [This question](http://money.stackexchange.com/q/33931/25282) seems to be about the same problem.
Answer: According to this, if your employer will not refund FICA taxes withheld in error, you need to file forms 843 and 8316 with IRS. Unfortunately, I have heard that it sometimes takes years for them to respond to those.
Answer: The employer most likely has already sent that money that was withheld to the IRS. Therefore they cannot refund you any money. Instead you need to get the money back from the IRS. You do this by filing a tax return.
Your W2C will show that taxes were withheld (I.e., that you paid taxes). The rest of the return will show that no taxes were due and therefore you are entitled to have your money refunded. If you have already filed for that tax you, you just need to file an amended return with the new data. That amendment will show that you are to be refunded the extra money. Then just wait several weeks for the payment from the IRS.
As pointed out user102008, if it is Medicare and social security taxes that have been withheld in error, then you need to file a different set of forms with IRS. It would be nice if refunding FICA also occurred via the tax return.
Comment: Filing an income tax return does not help. Mistakenly withheld FICA taxes cannot be refunded through an income tax return.


What happens when Tor always chooses the same path?

Question: What weakness would this expose? It doesn't seem obvious that there would be any apparent way to attack.
Comment: Would you be using your own relays? Otherwise, why would you want a static circuit? Why would you do that rather than setting up a hidden service, and connecting to it?
Answer: This may seem strange but I believe doing that actually makes the system stronger.
Using the same path always prevents an attack called a predecessor attack.
It also makes end to end correlation attacks more difficult as it only gives the adversary one shot at being selected by the client to be in their path.
This "it's actually more secure" line of thought is the reason guard nodes exist.
If you don't know guard nodes are the first hop in your circuit.
When a client enters the network it selects a set of relays to be its guard nodes. A client's guard nodes stay the same for as long as possible.
Answer: This makes your entire traffic highly fingerprintable as compared to a standard random path. If your connections always used A, B, and C nodes, it is statistically unlikely that many other people are consistently using that same path, therefore it's very easy to correlate your traffic to your originating IP.
An adversary exploiting this would need to have purview of each step in the connection to find out that you're using this static path. But once its been found, they would be able to make a simple 1:1 correlation of the traffic by watching when you access the Tor network, and then watch your exit node that never changes. (As opposed to you taking a variety of paths and choosing a variety of exit nodes.)
While the idea of guard nodes (static entry nodes) offers more protection, making the entire route static would reduce your anonomity.
In terms of traffic correlation attacks you've in some ways reduced Tor down to a single hop proxy.
Answer: If everybody uses the same path, it will be like JAP. However, if everybody uses different paths,  timing attack will be easy. Performance is also a problem.


Translate blend file to python

Question: How can I get equivalent python code for a created blend file from blender. I want to generate java code for corresponding python code of a blender. I am unable to get python code of blender file either inside or outside the blender.
Comment: I am not sure what you want. Do you want python code that generates the vertices and faces of a model in your .blend file? Blender has a python API, but internally it is programmed in C. And the abstract data structures Blender uses internally can not be exported directly as a python script.
Comment: Question is not a duplicate, but is related to: http://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/2410
Comment: You could elaborate on what exactly you are trying to do. Probably better solutions exist.
Answer: Blender has no facility to write a <code>.blend</code> file as a series of Python instructions.
For limited uses you could write your own script (Its been done before for rigify armatures for eg), but for the entire blend file this becomes a large task.

Translate blend file to python


Is it possible to expand the PWM signal?

Question: I'm looking at the WS2812B LEDs and I've noticed that it is possible to control the LEDs by an external library (https://learn.adafruit.com/neopixels-on-raspberry-pi/software). But, this only drives a single one meter strip. But, is it even possible generate multiple PWM signals using an IO Expander and address the PWM to certain ports of the IO Expander? If not, why?
Comment: The WS2812 is not controlled with a PWM signal. The Raspberry Pi library is using (or perhaps abusing) the PWM module to send 800kHz serial data to the LEDs
Answer: That depends on the model of Pi you have.
The Pi's PWM peripheral is used to generate the proprietary signals needed by the WS2812 (which are NOT PWM).  The peripheral has two channels so if your Pi has gpios which can be connected to the two channels you could drive more than one strip.
The gpios you need are 12, 13, 18, or 19.  Gpios 12/18 are channel 0, 13/19 are channel 1.
Actually the strips may be chainable (some are, you need to check) in which case you could control several strips from the same gpio.
Answer: You cannot convert any IO pin to a PWM pin.
You can definitely use another Integrated Circuit to get 16 PWM channels.
Take a look at NXP PCA9685 16-channel, 12-bit PWM Fm+ I2C-bus LED controller.
From the description: "The PCA9685 is an I²C-bus controlled 16-channel LED controller optimized for LCD Red/Green/Blue/Amber (RGBA) color backlighting applications. Each LED output has its own 12-bit resolution (4096 steps) fixed frequency individual PWM controller that operates at a programmable frequency from a typical of 40 Hz to 1000 Hz with a duty cycle that is adjustable from 0 % to 100 % to allow the LED to be set to a specific brightness value. All outputs are set to the same PWM frequency."

If you are not interested in designing your own, you can look at this product from adafruit.

Hope that this fits your needs.
Comment: The PCA9685 may be OK for general PWM (although the PI can generate more flexible PWM on all the gpios, not just the 16 outputs supported by that board), but they are no use in driving a WS2812.


Does GPars actors model uses user thread or native OS threads

Question: I know when there is no message to process an actor does not consume thread and attaches itself to a thread only when message arrives. However my question is when an actors is attached to a thread what kind of thread it is - user thread or native OS thread?
I want to basically understand what will happen if there is some blocking code in actor, say some i/o call or waiting for response of web service?  Will the thread remain blocked or thread will be released and available to some other actor? As far as I think if it is native thread then it will be blocked. However if it is user thread then native thread might not be blocked
Answer: IO operations within the actor body will block the current thread.


Printer does not print, queue showing completed, can not correct setup

Question: Using 12.04; I recently added a USB connection for Arduino board. Now I can not print using a Canon ip2600 printer. It is shown as installed but if I try to uninstall or update properties I get a request for a password which is rejected regardless of what is entered, my username is a member of admin and I added it to lp group but I still can not print. The print queue shows that the printing was completed but it was not. I am not allowed to empty queue and no update of drivers is shown in the print box. Printer works fine if I boot into Windows so printer and USB cable are ok.
Answer: I added my user name to "lpadmin" and was able to delete the printer.


Is there any way of going from virtual machine to live cd?

Question: I think it would be really nice to be able to get a live cd from the operating system of a virtual machine. Is there any virtualization software that has this capabilities?
Answer: CD's are, by definition, non-rewritrable media, which makes them unusable  for OS's installations (live-cd's are working by creating a RAM disk in which they can store temporary files and settings, which are lost upon reboot).
Answer: Actually, the answer is yes.  The trick is to realize that the archival of the system is as as Livecd cdrom+ramdisk or Livecd cdrom+ramdisk+usb flash drive system.
There is a tool for Ubuntu that will create a LiveCD derived from an installation.
I would imagine that using something like casper-rw, you could keep writing changes to a usb flash drive.
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/creating-custom-ubuntu-live-cd-with-remastersys.html
Comment: I've used this tool, and it works well!  +1
Answer: The boot process for a CD vs. an HDD are different, as well as the entire layout of the disk.  You cannot simply image a hard drive, put it on a CD and boot from it.  There would have to be a heavy-weight conversion process to handle this, as well as to set up the appropriate RAM disk behavior that bongo described.
This would be a good thread for people who actually work on live-cd software to chime in on.
Answer: You can create a 'portable' virtual machine from any windows computer (virtual or physical) with MojoPac. However, it's not bootable, MojoPac requires another Windows host.


Recording piano part for rehearsal at different speeds

Question: I can't afford a rehearsal pianist and want to explore whether I can record the piano part and play it back at various speeds for rehearsal purposes.  I'm not very technologically advanced but is there an easy and affordable solution?
Answer: May I ask what kind of experience you have in the audio field? It would help us give a more useful answer for you, with the right level of detail. I'll offer a general response for now though:
You've got two options:

Record your piano piece straight into audio editing software. Audacity would be a good choice if you don't have a favourite already; it's free! You can then simply manipulate the speed of the audio file to whatever you wish. In Audacity it'd be Effects > Change Speed / Change Tempo

Alternatively, if you have access to a Digital Audio Workstation, like Pro Tools or Logic, and have a MIDI keyboard, you could play the piano piece into the DAW on an Instrument track, and play back at whatever Tempo you wish.
Comment: Many thanks indeed Skarik.  To answer your first question on what experience I have the answer is pretty much none.  I have a minidisk recorder and a video camera so I can make CDs and DVDs from there.  I'm not sure what you mean by recording "straight into audio editing software"- does that mean that you plug some sort of microphone into the computer?  Sorry if I'm being thick, this is my technological level I'm afraid!  Many thanks again for your help, I definitely like the sound of the free software that you have recommended!!
Comment: @SteveWiley you'll probably have the best luck with an Intro to Digital Recording book for your needs. The results you desire are certainly possible, but the skill required borders on intermediate in my opinion.
Comment: You're not "being thick" at all, everyone starts somewhere! But yes, I do simply mean plugging a mic into your computer's mic-in port, and then using Audacity to record (much like an old-school cassette recorder). There are, of course, many different microphones of varying qualities and prices available, and many different internal / external sound-cards or audio interfaces you could use to plug the microphone into.... --->
Comment: <--- ...But at a very basic level, as proof of concept or purely for practice, you can simply get any old microphone, such as the mic that's built in to Macbook Pros or that on a headset used for video chats etc., and use it to record your piano piece straight into Audacity; quite simply, plug in the mic, open Audacity, press Record, then play the piano! Once you've finished, press Stop, then follow the above in order to change speed/tempo.
Comment: For just making rehearsal recordings, you could do something as simple as using the microphone in your computer. Or an external plug-in mic that could be obtained for probably less than $5, etc.  Download FREE Audacity and you can at least learn how to record and manipulate audio files with it. Recommened.
Comment: That's brilliant, thanks everyone, I'll let you know how I get on...
Comment: For anyone still following this, I promised to say how I got on.  I have successfully made lots of recordings using audacity and a desktop microphone and had a rehearsal a few weeks ago in which we were able to use the recordings to accompany the singing and change tempo as required.  Thanks again for your help.
Comment: Great to hear it's going well - thanks for the update!


Can a bike with an internal bottom bracket be retrofitted to have an external bottom bracket?

Question: External bottom brackets have been appearing on higher-end bikes in the last few years.  Can older bikes with bottom bracket shells that come stock with square taper internal ISO 68mm or oversized ISO 73mm bottom brackets be retrofitted with external cups when it comes time to replace the bottom bracket?  I am well aware that the cranks will have have to be replaced, too.
Answer: The external bottom bracket uses the same thread size and shell width as an older internal BB. They were specifically designed to allow use in a standardized frame without redesign.
They do require a new crank set, and depending on the model, and what is on your current bike, that may mean the purchase of extra components in order to be compatible with the correct number of gears/width of chain. If you are going from 9 speed MTB to 9 speed MTB components, for example, a like for like change, then it should be just the crank set and BB that change.
An external BB is also designed to fit on either a 68mm or 73mm shell. They are universal, as long as you dont have a pressfit BB, or an Italian thread BB. Similar crank sets are available for non-english thread BB's, but it must be designed for your frame's BB shell type specifically.
Answer: Yes they most definitely can be used on older frames - either 68 or 73 mm.
You may want to Google the version you are after e.g. MT51 on Shimano Tech Docs as they will have full instructions that you may want to read before you buy.


Difference in stretching routines that focus on flexibility vs mobility?

Question: I'm trying to find a daily stretching routine to incorporate in addition to my cardio and resistance training. I understand that flexibility is not necessarily the same as mobility. I was wondering if anyone could offer examples of how two routines/programs would differ with these competing focuses?
Answer: The difference in flexibility vs mobility is flexibility stretching can keep your muscles flexible and elongated. For instance, if you do not stretch as a bodybuilder then you end up not being able to touch your toes or to reach behind your back, etc. Mobility training does not affect your flexibility but can help correct a curved spine, allow you to move your hips better or rotate them, rotate your shoulders fully and more. Stretching for mobility also benefits your flexibility.. but stretching for flexibility does not necessarily help your mobility. Note that specific to your question, there is also a difference between mobility stretching and mobility dynamic exercises where you are actively moving but it is not considered a stretch.
Here are examples of stretching for flexibility:
Yoga poses such as downward dog, stretching your hamstrings, stretching your triceps, really any yoga poses you can think of.
There is also dynamic stretching such as opening your hands wider and wider to stretch your chest, arm circles, jumping jacks.
You can also foam roll a muscle to stretch it out  or relieve tension in a tight muscle to some extent.
Stretching for mobility:
Thoracic extension stretch on a foam roller, thoracic rotation with open book exercise, band pull aparts
Dynamic mobility exercises:
Hip rotations, Cuban presses, external and internal band rotations, squats with a 90 degree rotation, clamshells
Mobility training is just as important as stretching. If you are not playing a sport or doing much that trains your mobility naturally I would also add some mobility moves in with your stretches. Rotator cuff exercises are part of mobility training and deserve a place in your workout.
Answer: "I'm trying to find a daily stretching routine to incorporate in addition to my cardio and resistance training..."
Unfortunately, there are no decent stretching routines available to the public.  Stretching has been terribly neglected in the fitness space.  I stretch everyday for between one and two hours, and I had to develop my own routine. You will also have to develop your own routine.   To help you get started, here are a few tips:
1) Here is an absolutely fantastic stretch for the external rotators of your hip (e.g. Obturator Internus).  It is a shame nobody knows about this one.
2) Here is a fantastic stretch for your hip flexors.
3) There is some scientific literature on stretching the internal rotators of the shoulder for baseball players.  Please note that the Cross-body stretch is now out of date and has been replaced by the Sleeper Stretch.
A couple other points:
1) The closest thing to a well rounded stretch program that I know of is "Stretch Therapy" by Kit Laughlin, who is out of Australia.  I don't do his routine myself, so I can't tell you whether it is good or not, but it is worth a try.
2) There are now some franchises that do nothing but stretch, such as Stretch Lab.  It looks like Stretch Lab has about fifty locations around the US.  The downside here is that they require a personal trainer and they are expensive.  I haven't done Stretch Lab myself, but I intend to do this soon.
3) Never take stretching instruction from someone who was flexible at an early age.  These people have no idea how a stiff adult body works because they have never been in this situation.   Kit Lauglin says this all the time.  I can tell you first hand experience this is true.
5) When you see pictures of people stretching on the internet, be aware that most of these people are genetically hyperflexible.  What they are doing may look good in the pictures, but it probably won't work for you (unless you are also hyperflexible).
6) If you mention "stretching" to most people, they think of Yoga.  However, Yoga is not stretching.  For example, the three stretches I referenced above (the Sleeper Stretch, external hip rotator stretch, Hip Flexor stretch) are not part of Yoga.   Point is, that many great stretches aren't practiced in Yoga.


Secondary dominants and modal interchange

Question: Is using a secondary dominant in a chord progression similar to using modal interchange? I hear the use of bVI chord in a major key quite similar to a V/V chord (It might just be me). How are they different?
Comment: In key C, V/V has notes D F# A C. bVI has Ab C Eb Gb(F#). That's two notes the same, like tts. Did you mean bVII, with Bb D F Ab?
Comment: No, I meant bVI. They sound quite similar, and I only just learned about tritone substitution through one of this post's answers. Thanks for your response!
Comment: @Tim V7/V is D F# A C, but V/V is only D F# A... no shared tones with bVI. Not sure if the OP meant that specifically
Comment: Tritone substitution would be a lot clearer if the `7` was put on the chords.
Comment: Yup.  It's stronger to have the full tritone.  But half of it still works!
Answer: A secondary dominant, by definition, leads to the dominant. Thus V/V, in key C, it's D(7) leading to G. Going anywhere else, that D or D7 isn't going to be a secondary dominant.
The bVI you quote is, in key C, Ab7, which can be considered as the V of a new key, C♯/D♭. A common key change in many songs. If it came with G straight after it, it could be considered as a sort of strange cadence, either imperfect if it stopped after playing G, or perfect, (G>C) with the A♭ as a red herring.
They both contain a 3rd and b7 of each other, but swapped over, producing a kind of tritone substitution effect, which may be what you're catching. That said, their functions are different.
Comment: That's exactly what was puzzling me. Thanks again!
Answer: You've discovered the 'b5 substitution' or 'tritone substitution'.  Yes, in the key of C, Ab7 can function as V of V.  It shares a tritone interval with D7 - the notes C and F# (Gb).
This illustrates the general principle that any dominant function chord can be substituted with a chord rooted a b5 higher.   If both notes of the tritone are present (i.e. if it's Ab7 rather than just Ab) the dominant effect is heightened,  but just as G (without a 7th) is still the dominant of C, Ab can still sound like the dominant of G.
On a more pragmatic level, a 'dominant' can be rooted a 5th below (G7 to C) or slide down from a semitone above (Db to C).
Common Practice harmony used this idea in the Augmented 6th chord, normally used as a pre-dominant.  Jazz-influenced harmony uses the b5 substitution freely.
I'm not a great fan of 'Modal Interchange'. It does little beyond hanging a 'permitted' label on some 'safe' chromatic chords.  We have a good, firm functional reason for  tritone substitutions!
Comment: This has cleared things up for me, will experiment with tritone substitution to find out more. Thanks for the response!
Comment: I don't mean to be argumentative, but _why_ do you dislike the term 'borrowed chord?' I just figure it means a kind of harmonic "coloring" or in the case of borrowed `v` or `bVII` or sort of "modal" cadence. Do you think some people believe "borrowed" means a special (Reimann-like) function?
Comment: I just don't find 'borrowing' a particularly useful concept.  It often seems to come from an obsession with diatonic-ism.  "This naughty chord isn't diatonic in the key we're in!  Oh, it IS diatonic in some other key.  That's alright then!"  That's not an analysis.  It's an excuse for not investigating what the chord is doing.  If anything - chords don't have to be functional.  Maybe it's just the chord next door.


How can I plug my portable generator into a "wall outlet"?

Question: Ok, before everyone starts immediately telling me "NO" let me explain.  I bought a new house last year and the original owner had installed a brown wall outlet in the garage.  Now, there are also 2 brown outlets in the house.  They are different than every other outlet in the house and according to the home inspector have no power that goes to them.  1 of the outlets is behind the fridge and the other is in the hall.  According to the directions in the garage the brown outlet in the garage is where you plug in a generator and it feeds power to the otherwise "dead" outlets indoors.  My problem is how do you plug the generator into the wall outlet?  Can you buy a power cord with 2 male ends?  Also where would I even go to get it?  There is no risk of "backfeeding" because these outlets are not wired into the rest of the home wiring.
Comment: People will still immediately tell you "no" because a cord with 2 make ends is exceptionally dangerous. If the owners intended these outlets to be used this way they should have provided a proper plug to plug into the generator. With the generator outside, not inside the garage.
Comment: @doxylover has it on this one, the safest way would be to hook it up with a male / plug then use a male female to hook up to the generator, if you do not have the correct cord you can make one with SO cord of the proper gauge for the amperage. DoxyLover you should post this as an answer.+
Comment: Making the cord may be needed for a 20a outlet. I hate it when I hit enter in comments for a carriage feed then run out of time to finish the comment.
Comment: Ed, when I mistakenly hit 'Enter' I just immediately go to 'edit' and finish. If I run out of time, I copy what I have typed in using *ctrl Insert* then I delete the original comment and put what I want into a new comment box using *Shift Insert*.
Comment: But before you do anything else,  buzz out the brown outlets to verify that they are connected to each other (and that hot <--> hot), and properly grounded, **and** not connected to anything else that the inspector might have missed.
Comment: @Johnny is correct, a suicide cord with 2 male ends **should not exist** -- because it could be erroneously plugged into any receptacle, and at that point *backfeed*, lighting up the entire house and the electrician fixing the wires.  Those guys are supposed to use grounding clamps, but I have found those to be *not 100%*.
Answer: You should replace the garage outlet with an inlet, such as this (Amazon, as an example).

This way, you can use a standard male-female cord, either a standard extension cord or one made with the correct gauge of SO cord [Thanks, @EdBeal]. You avoid using a male-male cord which is so dangerous.
Comment: +1 But note @Johnny s comment about the danger of running a generator in a garage. Put it outside and connect it with a standard heavy duty extension cord .
Comment: **YES.  This is exactly the thing for that.** In fact, nothing keeps you from using a common (heavy) extension cord to jump this inlet to a nearby outlet (perhaps one on a dedicated circuit), leaving the brown outlets energized 24x7.  This configuration would be foolproof. (though perhaps not code legal).  @bib The outlet, er, wrongly-pinned inlet, is exactly where it should be - indoors. Since the use of a cord is assumed, nothing here implies OP means to run a generator indoors.
Comment: This is absolutely the correct solution. A male to male electrical cord is a really bad idea.
Answer: I think the reason the owner did this is because if he has a male plug inside, how does he plug an appliance into it? I think he has a double male plug from his generator to an outside dummy socket. Then that socket is connected to an inside dummy socket. It must be for hurricanes in order to not take cords through windows. This is potentially dangerous since you have a male end with power that can touch you when you're handling it or some other conductive material. I wouldn't recommend it. That male socket in the pic would be perfect in this case if its the one outside. No danger since it's a dummy and the only way to power it is to have it covered.The male to male plugs are called widow makers.


Options Arbitrage strategy

Question: Supposed we have 1-year call option with a strike of 90 and it costs 10. We also have 1-year put on the same stock with a strike of 100. The risk free rate is 5% per annum. the stock is currently trading at 80. For which price of a put option we can find an arbitrage strategy, for 20 or 30? And what the arbitrage strategy would be? I thought about shorting the put and the stock, and buying the call. According to my calculations it will always yield a non-negative profit, but I am not sure whether I am on the right track.
Comment: Suggestion: read about Put Call Parity.
Comment: I did, but it is not applicable here because call and put have different strike prices
Answer: We would like to obtain bounds on P(100).   First calculate P(90) from put-call parity:
C(90)-P(90)= stock - PV(strike)
=S- 90/1.05 = 80-85.71= -5.71
So P(90)= C(90)+5.71= 15.71
Now observe the following inequalities:
P(100) > P(90) > P(100) -10/1.05
The first of these states that the right to sell for 100 is always better than the right to sell for 90.  The second states that the value of the 100-90 put spread can never be greater than the PV of its maximum payoff (10).  So from these we obtain :
P(100) > 15.71 and P(100) < 25.24
As the arbitrage bounds for the 100 put.  This all assumes the stock does not pay dividends.
Answer: At time of payout you have
$$C(K=90) \leqslant C(K = 100) + 10$$
and
$$P(K=90) \geqslant P(K=100) - 10$$
From that using put-call parity you can deduct
$$ S - 100 * e^{-rT} \leqslant C(K=90) - P(K=100) \leqslant S - 90 * e^{-rT}$$
If this inequality is violated, than you have an arbitrage opportunity. Take advantage of it by buying the stuff that is underpriced and short the overprice things.
E.g. assume the first inequality does not hold.
Than $C(K=90)$ is too cheap or $P(K=100)$ to expensive. Buy the Call, Sell the Put and the Stock.
The payout at T is:
For $S \leqslant 90$: $-100+S-S=-100$
For $90 \leqslant S \leqslant 100$: $S-90 - 100 + S - S = S - 190$
For $100 \leqslant S$: $S - 90-S=-90$
For all three outcomes the payout is greater than -100.
Our assumption was that
$$C(K=90)-P(K=100)-S < -100 * e^{rT}$$
Which means we got more than 100 (discounted) in cash for our position at time of inception.
Since we made more money from selling the shorts than we loose by buying the call and through the payout we make a sure profit.

Options Arbitrage strategy


What are the radius of containment (Rc) and horizontal protection limit (HPL) and how are they related to Type Code?

Question: In ICAO Document 9871 (Technical Provisions for Mode S Services and Extended Squitter) page 30 they have mentioned it in the form of a table. But they haven't explained HPL and Rc in detail.
Comment: I edited the question to clarify that the reference is to ICAO Doc 9871.  The question is clear and can remain open.
Answer: Mode S ADS-B messages use DF17 or DF18.  The type code field with the DF17/DF18 is set to reflect the current navigation performance.
The Containment Radius (Rc) is the radius that there is a 95% probability the aircraft is within that radius of its stated position, both horizontally and vertically.
HPL is computed by the GNSS and is the theoretical 100% containment (protection) limit in the horizontal only. It is approximately double the value of the Rc. Since HPL is horizontal only, the vertical is mostly addressed by the cases of 1) no altitude, 2) baro altitude or in its absence, 3) the GNSS height.
So based on the presence and value of HPL and altitude data, the appropriate Type Code can be set by referring to the table. The receiver of the message can then determine the transmitter's Rc.


Did Chava tell Adam she was giving him fruit from the etz ha'das?

Question: When Chava gave Adam fruit from the etz ha'das to eat did she tell him where the fruit was coming from or not?
Comment: See [hagahos RD"L on Pirke Rebi Eliezer chapter 13 # 46](http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21858&pgnum=95)
Comment: I'll try to find a definitive source, but I remember reading that she did not, but Adam was culpable because he did not ask.
Answer: It is a matter of dispute. See here in an old speech of mine:

Beraishis Rabba (19:5) and (20:8) relate a three-way dispute as to why Adam ate from the tree.
Rabbi Aivu quotes the ... pasuk: vattitten gam li-ishah eemah vayyochal. and she gave also to her husband with her and he ate. Rabbi Aivu derives from the pasuk that he ate because she gave it to him. He says, Suhchatuh Anuhvim vinuhsinu lo. The etz hadaas was a grape vine, and Chava squeezed the grapes into grape juice and gave it to him. Thus, he did not know that he was partaking of the forbidden fruit and was therefore acting either out of shogeg or peshiah...
In contrast, Rabbi Simlai quotes beraishit 3:17 , where Hashem says he will punish Adam Ki shumatu likol ishtechu, vatochal min-hu-etz, "because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the fruit." Listening to the voice of someone generally means listening to an argument put forth by that person and agreeing to the validity of his or her argument. Thus, according to Rabbi Simlai, this pasuk implies that Chava presented a compelling argument to Adam, and Adam, persuaded by her argument, ate the fruit...
Finally, the Chachamim disagree with Rabbi Simlai's understanding of the pasuk Ki shumatu likol ishtechu vatochal min-hu-etz: Rabbi Simlai posited that shumatu likol ishtechu meant listening to Chava's words, but if so, the pasuk should have said Ki shumatu lidivray ishtechu. Kol implies voice, not words, so the Chachamim claim that Chava began weeping and crying to him until he ate from the etz.

Thus, according to Rabbi Aivu, he did not know. According to Rabbi Simlai and the Chachamim, he did.
Answer: Baal haTurim on 3:12 says she forced him to eat it "by beating him with the stick of the tree."* I have heard this interpreted by my rabbeim that she cried hysterically and that to him it was like "being beaten with a stick" - a strong impact - and that is what forced him to eat it.
It follows that he knew what he was eating of.
*Note this fits the language of the verse - "...gave me of the tree and I ate."
Comment: @msh210 otherwise why would she need to go to such lengths to get him to eat it?
Comment: I don't understand how the fact that her crying impelled him to eat it implies that he knew whereof he eat.
Comment: @nikmasi, maybe he didn't like raw citron (and who can blame him). Or some other reason.
Comment: @msh210 I always thought that was the point of content between them, like nikmasi wrote.


debian puppet clients (0.24.5-3) failing to retrieve file , centOs (0.25.5-1) working ok

Question: I have got a puppetmaster and a mix of CentOs 5.4 and Lenny 5.0.3 clients.
The CentOs have puppet-0.25.5-1.el5 installed and are working fine to retrieve files.
The Debian boxes have the 0.24.5-3 puppet from the repos, and are failing with the following errors;
<code>notice: Starting catalog run
debug: Loaded state in 0.00 seconds
debug: Prefetching apt resources for package
debug: Executing '/usr/bin/dpkg-query -W --showformat '${Status} ${Package} ${Version}\n''
debug: Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderApt: Executing '/usr/bin/dpkg-query -W --showformat '${Status} ${Package} ${Version}\n''
debug: //puppet/Service[puppet]/require: requires Package[puppet]
debug: Calling fileserver.describe
err: //Node[default]/File[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf]: Failed to retrieve current state of resource: Mounts without paths are not usable Could not describe /modules/bpcommon/basenode/etc/puppet/puppet.conf: Mounts without paths are not usable at /etc/puppet/manifests/nodes.pp:33
</code>
The file definitely exists on the fileserver, and is being retrieved and installed by the centos clients.
I am guessing that the earlier version of puppet requires further configuration to work with the file server.
(i have also tested this with a dummy file, test.txt which also fails with the same error, so it does not seem to be related to the fact I am trying to bootstrap /etc/puppet/puppet.conf)
Answer: puppet 0.24.5 doesn't support the puppet://modules/modulename/some.file.txt format of specifying the source attribute
this;
source => "puppet://modulename/some.file.txt"
works though.


How to make tags show up in search results?

Question: Im looking for a way to make tags a searchable object. To clarify, Im NOT trying to make the search engine search posts by looking at its tags, but I want tags to show up in the results just like a post.
any help would be much apreciated
Answer: There isn't a way to do this "out of the box". However, what you could do is setup your search page to search for tags, categories, and other taxonomies before (or after) searching for posts. With a little effort you could intersperse them as well, but pagination would be tough -- your best bet is to have multiple search results areas, "Matching Tags", "Matching Categories", "Matching Posts", etc. See get_terms for everything you need to know to search taxonomies!
Cheers~
Answer: You'd have to do some modification to the generated SQL query via filters: posts_search, posts_join, posts_where.
Or you can just use the plugin Search Everything.