Does my spouse from Africa need a visa to enter UK as family member of EEA

Question: I am a Spanish citizen living in the UK, and my spouse is a Gambian national living in Gambia, I am intending to apply for him to join me in to the UK. I am currently in Gambia with him and I heard that there is a way that he will be able to come along with me as a family member of an EEA citizen under the settlement scheme. Can someone help me to explain how to apply and the requirements, as they told me I don't need to be working as I am in the Gambia with him and we are planning to come together.
Comment: If you plan to live in the UK and not just visit, you should ask at Expatriates Stack Exchange. But as you know the UK is in the process of Brexit, and any advice given now may be invalid by November.
Comment: How long have you been in Gambia?  Have you already registered for the settlement scheme?
Comment: Thanks for your time ! And yes i am registered for the settlement scheme , and what is this expatriates stack exchange? I am living in the uk but i just went for some time
Comment: I just came to gambia last month
Comment: @Aicha [Expatriates.SE].  You should apply for a settlement scheme family permit.  I'll answer the question and flag for migration.
Answer: If you have already applied for the EU settlement scheme, you can apply for the EU Settlement Scheme Family Permit:

You can apply for an EU Settlement Scheme family permit to come to the UK if all of the following apply:

you're from outside the European Economic Area (EEA)
you're the 'close' family member of an EEA or Swiss national (excluding UK nationals)
the EEA citizen you're joining has 'settled' or 'pre-settled' status under the EU Settlement Scheme
the EEA citizen you're joining is in the UK already or travelling with you to the UK within 6 months of the date of your application
Comment: @Aicha this answer is not correct. Your spouse cannot apply for a residence card in Gambia.  The application can only be made after arrival in the UK.  You must be working or otherwise "qualified" for the residence card application to be successful.  The residence card will cease to be valid shortly after Brexit.  Instead, he should apply for the settlement scheme.
Comment: @Aicha Thanks, if my answer helped please press the tick next to my answer. Thanks
Comment: Thanks a lot  Bless you !
Comment: The part of the answer that was incorrect has been removed, so I have upvoted the answer.
Comment: Is there any inconvenience if i am not working at the moment to apply ?
Answer: As you have already registered with the settlement scheme, your spouse should apply for an EU settlement scheme family permit.  If you do not have settled or pre-settled status, he would apply for an EEA family permit (details on the same page).
If you have "pre-settled status" I believe you have to be working or otherwise "qualified" for the application to succeed, but this is not clear.
After he arrives in the UK, he should not apply for a residence card but to the settlement scheme as a family member.  The residence card will not be valid after 31 December 2020.
Comment: @Daniil your answer says he is eligible for a residence card.  That is true, but (1) he cannot apply for it before he gets to the UK, and (2) it's not the document he wants, since it will only be valid for just over one year.
Comment: How is his different to my answer?
Comment: I'll remove that part then
Answer: I believe this is the document you're looking for:
Free Movement Rights: direct family members of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals
As a general rule, family members of EU nationals have an automatic right to accompany or join their EU partners/parents in another member state. A visa is still required to enter the EU but must be issued free of charge and ASAP.
However, since May took over the Home Office the UK has set up numerous barriers that make it much more difficult to get such a visa. The intention to leave the EU won't make it easier either.
Applying for an entry visa to the UK for family members of EU nationals requires filling out a whopping 14 pages that include very personal questions.
The freedom of movement of EU nationals and their family members in the UK will at least continue until 2020-12-31: No deal immigration arrangements for EU citizens arriving after Brexit
I believe it might be advisable to think about entering the UK from Ireland, at least if it proves impossible to get a UK visa in time.
The point for this is not to prevent being refused entry but to avoid trouble with your airline as they most likely would have no clue about the Citizen's Directive and do not let you board the plane regardless of your rights. I am not entirely sure about the Common Travel Area between Ireland and the UK but for the Schengen Area all that is required is an entry visa. After entry, the visa is completely irrelevant as long as you have other means to prove your relationship. This should also apply for the CTA as the Citizen's Directive is (still) valid in the UK as well.
You should carry your marriage certificate with you. If your certificate is Spanish, simply get a multilingual EU certificate. If it is Gambian, it might be advisable to get your marriage registered in Spain first, as the Gambia is not member to the Hague Convention, meaning in order to do anything, you'd have to get it recognised for every country you go which would be most likely less painful in your home country doing it once only.
Comment: "Apparently, Irish visas are valid for the UK as well, if the national applying for one requires for both the UK and Ireland then it is valid for both": that's not at all how the BIVS works.  It applies only to visitor visas issued in China or India to citizens of China or India and explicitly marked BIVS.  It is therefore entirely irrelevant to a citizen of Africa and entirely irrelevant to a family permit.
Comment: @phoog Actually, both the UK gov page for the scheme and the FAQ say so. It seems a little less ambiguous in the FAQ though first says it applies to "anyone" and then says it has only rolled out for Chinese and Indian nationals and will be rolled out for all other nationalities at a later point. So don't blame me, blame the UK government for not being able to make a clear statement.
Comment: See https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/14735/eea-family-permit-refusal in which an EEA family permit was refused because an applicant married in Albania presented an Italian "extract of marriage" certifying the registration of the marriage with Italian authorities.  This was not accepted because it was not the "original marriage certificate."  Registering the marriage in Spain will not help with an EEA family permit.
Comment: @phoog That is surprising and most likely illegal. A "marriage certificate" is not required, only proof of relationship.
Comment: @phoog it looks like the refusal from your link was not the marriage certificate but more the fact that it looked like a marriage without relationship (ie. of convenience) to UK immigration.
Comment: The refusal letter merely rejected all of the evidence; it never mentioned marriage of convenience.  You're correct about the refusal to recognize the Italian extract.  I wish I'd thought of it then.  I doubt that many people would go to court to assert this, however, unless they were unable to get an Albanian certificate (or in this case Gambian).  Until someone does do this, the UK will probably continue to require certificates from the jurisdiction where the marriage actually took place.


Is it possible to create a List Definition project with multiple custom content types, pushed to several sites at once?

Question: There's plenty of documentation online on how to configure a List Definition project to create a single list using a custom content type, but how does one go about creating a project that contains multiple content types that create several lists? If custom content types for one list are defined in its instance's Elements.xml, how would another list instance use those content types? Finally, how can I get the list definition project applied to several SharePoint sites?
Answer: As mentioned, create a project with multiple features.  Here is how I typically do it:

Feature 1 = Site Columns and Content Types (sometimes I'll separate
Content Types into different features)
Feature 2 = List Definitions (aka List Templates)
Feature 3 = List Instances (if applicable)
Feature 4 = "empty" feature with Activation Dependencies on the other three features,
with activation dependencies specified in order.

Usually only the "empty" feature is Visible (i.e. all others are set to Visible=False).  This is similar to how the TeamCollab feature (which is responsible for deploying the out-of-the-box list templates).  Look at C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Web Server Extensions\14\TEMPLATE\FEATURES\TeamCollab by default to see it.
I don't like having so many SharePoint Project Items all over my project, so typically, I will add a Content Type SPI called "Content Types".  Then as I add other Content Types, I'll design them and move them over into the Elements.xml file of the original "Content Types" SPI (so that all the Content Types are defined in a single Elements.xml file).  I keep all Fields in a separate "Empty SharePoint Project Item", again in a single "Elements.xml".  Because List Definitions require a special folder setup for deployment, I keep all List Definitions as separate SPI items, but just use the Feature Packaging Manager to include them all in a single feature.
I think there are exmaples of this in the Inside SharePoint 2010 book from MS Press.  Here is a link to download the companion code: http://examples.oreilly.com/9780735627468-files/
Comment: What does "SPI" stand for? 'SharePoint Project Item'?
Comment: Yes, exactly.  Basically one of the Visual Studio project item templates, such as Content Type, Module, List Defintion, Empty Element, etc.
Answer: I usually prefer to use one feature that deploys custom content types and an another feature to deploy list definitions. When deploying activate custom content types first and then the list definiton feature.
As long as you use same contenttypeid in your schema.xml to reference your contenttype you defined in your content type feature, it should be fine. The content type need not be defined in the same module. You can specify something like below in your schema.xml.
<code><ContentTypes>
      <ContentTypeRef ID="0x1234567890"></ContentTypeRef>
</ContentTypes>
</code>
Comment: FYI...I've had problems with  working in List Definitions within Sandboxed Solutions.  May want to use  instead.


How to share built-in wallpapers in Windows 10 Mobile?

Question: For Pc's We can share built-in wallpapers very easily via file explorer: Windows>Web>Wallpapers  But for my Lumia 535 running windows 10 mobile it seems that built-in wallpapers cannot be shared. Similar is the case for ringtones. My question is that a can we share built-in ringtones and wallpapers via Bluetooth/mail or Windows 10 Mobile does not allow to do so? My phone is interop unlocked dual sim Lumia 535 (RM-1090) running W10M (14393.693) if relevant.
Answer: No. You can't share built in wallpapers of Windows 10 Mobile


Facebook App for adding tab to page OAuth in Codeigniter

Question: I am creating a facebook app for adding a tab on my facebook page. I am using Codeigniter Framework for that. I need access to some user info - email, education, etc in a particular page of my app. So, I need to authenticate only in that page and get the access token. In my attempt of doing that I am able to authenticate the user but unable to get the code sent by facebook oauth, which I need to get the access token. I think this is due to the fact that Codeigniter modifies the get array. I tried some ways to get the get array working but I was still unable to get the code contents.
Can you please give me a straight forward way to get an oauth token for the user in my app. I have tried to search a lot, but nothing worked.
So far this is the code I wrote:
$canvas_page = $page_url;
$signed_request = $_REQUEST["signed_request"];
$code = $this->input->get('code');
list($encoded_sig, $payload) = explode('.', $signed_request, 2);
$data = json_decode(base64_decode(strtr($payload, '-_', '+/')), true);

$auth_url = "https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?client_id=" . $app_id . "&redirect_uri=" . urlencode($canvas_page)."&scope=email,user_work_history,user_education_history";
  if (empty($data["user_id"])) {
        echo("");
  } else {
        echo ("Welcome User: " . $data["user_id"])."
";
        $token_url = "https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?". "client_id=" . $app_id . "&redirect_uri=" . urlencode($canvas_page). "&client_secret=" . $app_secret . "&code=" . $code;
        $a = file_get_contents($graph_url);
        var_dump($a);
  }

Please give me a simple way to get the OAuth done. I want to spend more time developing that app than trying to figure out OAuth.
Answer: You may disable sanitization of GET but you probably doesn't want this.
As a quick and dirty solution you can do something like this:
parse_str($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'], $args); // $args now contain GET parameters


Is UDP Usage in Routing Information Protocol (RIP) a Secure Practice?

Question: I know that UDP is a connectionless transport layer protocol. Since it is easy to fake your source IP and source Port in your headers, what keeps anyone from poisoning routing tables via RIP? It seems to me like I can easily flood routers with fake information messages under this circumstance.
Answer: Yes, plain RIP can be vulnerable to attacks. RIP was created long before the Internet was commercialized. Today, there are options for secure authentication of RIP updates. For example, RFC 4822, RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication:

Introduction
Growth in the Internet has made us aware of the need for improved
authentication of routing information. RIPv2 provides for
unauthenticated service (as in classical RIP), or password
authentication. Both are vulnerable to passive attacks currently
widespread in the Internet. Well-understood security issues exist in
routing protocols [Bell89]. Cleartext passwords, originally
specified for use with RIPv2, are widely understood to be vulnerable
to easily deployed passive attacks [HA94].
The original RIPv2 cryptographic authentication specification, RFC
2082 [AB97], used the Keyed-MD5 cryptographic mechanism.  While there
are no openly published attacks on that mechanism, some reports
[Dobb96a, Dobb96b] create concern about the ultimate strength of the
MD5 cryptographic hash function  Further, some end users,
particularly several different governments, require the use of the
SHA hash function family rather than any other such function for
policy reasons.  Finally, the original specification uses a hashing
construction widely believed to be weaker than the HMAC construction
used with the algorithms added in this revision of the specification.
This document obsoletes the original specification, RFC 2082
[AB97]. This specification differs from RFC 2082 by adding support
for the SHA family of hash algorithms and the HMAC technique, while
retaining the original Keyed-MD5 algorithm and mode. As the
original RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication mechanism was
algorithm-independent, backwards compatibility is retained. This
requirement for backwards compatibility precludes making
significant protocol changes. So, this document limits changes to
the addition of support for an additional family of cryptographic
algorithms. The original specification has been very widely
implemented, is known to be widely interoperable, and is also
widely deployed.
The authors do NOT believe that this specification is the final
answer to RIPv2 authentication and encourage the reader to consult
the Security Considerations section of this document for more
details.
If RIPv2 authentication is disabled, then only simple
misconfigurations are detected.  The original RIPv2 authentication
mechanism relied upon reused cleartext passwords. Use of cleartext
password authentication can protect against accidental
misconfigurations if that were the only concern, but is not helpful
from a security perspective.  By simply capturing information on the
wire -- straightforward even in a remote environment -- a hostile
entity can read the cleartext RIPv2 password and use that knowledge
to inject false information into the routing system via the RIPv2
routing protocol.
This mechanism is intended to reduce the risk of a successful
passive attack upon RIPv2 deployments. That is, deployment of this
mechanism greatly reduces the vulnerability of the RIPv2-based
routing system from a passive attack. When cryptographic
authentication is enabled, we transmit the output of a keyed
cryptographic one-way function in the authentication field of the
RIPv2 packet, instead of sending a cleartext reusable password in
the RIPv2 packet. The RIPv2 Authentication Key is known only to
the authorized parties of the RIPv2 session. The RIPv2
Authentication Key is never sent over the network in the clear.
In this way, protection is afforded against forgery or message
modification. While it is possible to replay a message until the
sequence number changes, a sequence number can be used to reduce
replay risks. The mechanism does not provide confidentiality, since
messages stay in the clear. Since the objective of a routing
protocol is to advertise the routing topology, confidentiality is not
normally required for routing protocols.
Other relevant rationales for the approach are that MD5 and SHA-1
are both being used for other purposes and are therefore generally
already present in IP routers, as is some form of password
management.
Answer: Route table poisoning used to happen accidentally (and with some regularity) when RIP (v1) was commonly used as a mechanism for end hosts to find redundant gateways in the days before FHRP's (i.e HSRP) came into use.  Misconfigured hosts (usually UNIX sysadmins forgetting to add the -q / quiet option to ripd) would advertise bad routing into a shared subnet.  This would not only cause the other hosts in the network to start sending traffic to the wrong place but could (would) propagate through the routers to the rest of the environment.
Several elements of best-practice came out of this:

Use an FHRP for hosts so that they (usually) don't need anything more than a default gateway.
Only allow routing protocols to run on segments specifically interconnecting routers.  The Cisco command passive-interface default accomplishes this for most IGP's (i.e. by default disallow routing adjacencies on any interfaces where not explicitly enabled).
Ideally use an IGP capable of authentication, and then actually use that authentication (this last part is still really uncommon).

So, yes, RIPv1 was (is) certainly vulnerable to receiving bad information (intentionally or otherwise).  It's not necessarily the use of UDP per se that's the origin of this but rather a fundamentally obsolete protocol implementation (regardless of protocol choice) as well as bad/sloppy practice on the part of network engineers.
Answer: This problem can be true without proper measures.  The correct way to secure this communication on the network is to require MD5 authentication.
Keep in mind authentication is NOT possible with RIPv1, only RIPv2.
Here is a Cisco doc on this for a more practical example
RIPv2 Authentication
Comment: It is worth noting that, unfortunately MD5 is totally broken and improve only slightly the security.
Comment: @JFL: It's not actually true that MD5 is totally broken - or rather, not for all applications: certainly it's totally broken *for applications that require no known collisions*, and I'd certainly never recommend using it in any new security protocol, or using it if there is a better alternative. But in cases like this, where (a) MD5 is the only option, and (b) the security doesn't rely on absence of collisions, then in practice it's worth doing, and the improvement in security will likely be more than slight :-)


What is the difference between intension and intention?

Question: What is the difference between intention and intension? If one intends to do something is this intent part of the concept of intension?
Comment: +1 This is a very important question for understanding modern philosophy. I remember reading Davidson, who uses both in the same essay without warning, it was very confusing until someone pointed out that there were two different words differentiated only by a single letter. They are indeed quite different concepts.
Comment: See [Intention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention) : "Intention is an agent's specific purpose in performing an action or series of actions, the end or goal that is aimed at. Outcomes that are not anticipated and not foreseen are known as unintended consequences." See [Intension](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension) : "In linguistics, logic, philosophy, and other fields, an intension is any property or quality connoted by a word, phrase, or another symbol." They are unrelated concepts ...
Comment: But would it be possible for the word *intent* to still be in the "semantic proximity" of *intension* though? Because I have seen people ([mathematicians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_concept_analysis), rather than philosophers of the mind) acting like so, with *extent* being cousin of *extension* also for example. But on the other hand, it could even just be due to their first language being german...
Answer: The "intension" of a concept is its meaning, whereas the "extension" of the concept is the set of the things that fall under that concept. The most helpful way to see the distinction is with a pair of concepts that have the same extension, but different intensions.
For instance "renate" (="having kidneys") and "cordate" (="having a heart"). Everything that is the one is also the other, so the terms are coextensive. Yet there is still clearly a difference in meaning between them.
"Intentional" on the other hand in these contexts usually means "being about something". (The idea of doing something "intentionally" i.e. on purpose is actually quite different.) Mental states are often intentional, that is to say, usually we are seeing that p, or believing that p, or doubting that p, or whatever. There is some content p to the mental state that it is about.
Comment: Are there unsolved or unresolved dilemmas related to differences between intensional and intentional? Could intentional that means 'being about something' refer mainly to dynamic processes necessary for the 'something' to occur. Maybe intension refers to 'states'of desciption related to the thing's meaning.Is this valid?
Comment: Not to my knowledge. The reason for this is that the "intension" and "extension" are going to be properties of concepts or words (or maybe sentences) whereas "intentionality" is going to be a property of mental states or something. It's hard to image what it would mean for a process to be "about" something.
Comment: I use of the term 'static'property for qualities of 'something' that are not necessarily involved in any necessary processes of the something. And 'dynamic'properties for qualities important to the continued existence of the 'something'. Maybe a dynamic property (a property that requires a certain duration of time and proper çoordination with other traits) could be interpreted as being about the 'something'being considered.
Comment: There is "intentional" as applied to words/sentences -- e.g., "Barack Obama is the US President." seems to be about Barack Obama. This isn't to contradict anything you've said, just to add that there is a semantic notion of "aboutness" as well. The intension/extension distinction is somewhat similar to the connotation/denotation or sense/reference distinction -- in case that helps the OP. (In formal semantics the "extension" of a term is its referent in the world of evaluation and the "intension" is a function from possible worlds to referents.)
Answer: Intension is a property of an object while intention is a property of a mind.
Comment: -1 (for now): this is too brief to be helpful. Could you expand it to spell out what you have in mind? I could imagine ways of fleshing this out that would be accurate, and ways that would be totally wrong.


Attachment is a poison. Why is attachment to the Buddha and to Buddhist philosophy not a problem?

Question: Attachment (aka craving or greed) is one of the Three Poisons.  Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?  Perhaps it's related to the Tibetan Buddhist lojong "Don't make gods into demons"?
Comment: Who says it's not a poison? Sounds poisonous to me :)
Comment: My question is better :P
Comment: Why does being a monk necessitate attachment to the Buddha?
Comment: One Zen master stopped using the word "Buddha" because people overused the word so. He [taught] "From now on, every time I use the word 'Buddha,' I will go to the river and wash my mouth out three times." His statement is completely in accord with the dialectics of prajnaparamita, but when people heard his words, they thought he was being disrespectful. Only one [person]  understood. He stood up and said, ["I appreciate your words. Every time I hear you say the word 'Buddha,' I will go to the river and wash out my ears three times."] - Thich Nhat Hahn - The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion
Comment: @yuttadhamo, I asked first. ;-)
Comment: @yuttadhammo, you are monk, yes?  How are you not attached to the Buddha?
Comment: Possible duplicate of [Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/4094/isnt-the-desire-for-giving-up-the-desires-a-desire)
Answer: Sez who?
Attachment to Buddhism and to Buddhist philosophy is a very serious problem, which every practitioner should be careful about, since it's so seductive: it's easy to be perceived as progress, whereas it's the very opposite of progress.
To counter this hazard, some Zen schools recommend that "if you come across the Buddha on the road, kill him!" (Not to be taken too literally.)
Answer: Buddhism is a "kayak" (a guide) that takes one from the endless sea of sufferings to find a harbor. What would one do in order to commence and land on the harbor?
Leave the kayak - Buddhism - and disembark.
If not, one is attached to the kayak. Still at sea.
The sea of sufferings.
Answer: My understanding is that the Buddha taught that we should not attach ourselves to him or his teachings.  If we find that his teachings don't work, then we should feel free to leave them behind and pursue other paths.
That said, there is also the idea that some attachments are better than others.  For example it is probably better for an alcoholic to replace their attachment to alcohol with an attachment to the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Likewise, it would be better for someone who is attached to suffering or causing suffering in others to replace that with an attachment to the Buddha's teachings.
Comment: Good answer.  The umbilical cord always has to be cut sooner or later, but definitely better to be attached to eating food than eating, say, rocks.
Answer: If someone is insulting the Buddha and the Dhamma, and you become hurt, you are poisoned!  But if you feel neutral (Uppekha) or compassionate (Karuna) towards the person, you are fine!
Answer: Do the teachings of the Buddha cause you suffering? If not, perhaps it's ok to hang on to them for a little while longer on this journey. :)
I find Buddhism refreshing in this manner as the teachings of some other religions actually do cause suffering for their followers. For example people who are excluded from participating fully in their chosen houses of worship due to sexual orientation.
Answer: Identifying with something doesn't necessarily mean you're attached to it, especially if that something is just your way of living. I identify best with Zen Buddhism, but I'm not attached to it any more than I'm attached to my own consciousness; it's just become how I think, which dictates how I feel.
Attachments are bad because if you lose them, you suffer.  I can't 'lose' Zen without completely losing myself, which is going to happen to all of us one day or another :) Preference is also commonly confused with attachment. I prefer a certain knife in my kitchen drawer for slicing tomatoes, but I wouldn't be at all upset if it wasn't there one day, I'd simply replace it.
A part of daily meditation can be imagining losing that which you value the most, so you've experienced it when it ultimately happens, which softens or even mitigates the suffering that might otherwise ensue. If you can't do that with something, then it's probably not something you could become attached to, but more just a part of your being.
Answer: Actually Buddha stated in his suttas after following the Eight Fold Path to attain Nibbana, you should give up the path when you attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. It is something like this; think that you wanna cross a river. There's no boat near by. So you collect wood and creepers and finally build a small boat and you cross the river using it. After crossing the river, will you carry the boat with you where ever you go thinking "this boat helped me to cross the river"? No. You'll leave the boat by the river and you'll go where you need to go. Buddha state that similarly one should give up the eight fold path after perfectly attaining the supreme bliss of Nibbana.
Answer: @THelper to elaborate on Toby's point. To call oneself a buddhist is to identify oneself with an ideological construct and therefore to dwell in a mental fabrication. The ideas of buddhism are arranged into a belief system more commonly known as a view. To associate your self with this view, is exactly the kind of housebuilding which the buddha espoused against in practically every sutra. Buddhism is the only "religion" which fervently encourages its followers to abandon any part of the belief system when it begins to hold them back rather than help them.
Answer: I think there is a misunderstanding here. Buddha was not a Buddhist, he was not attached to the previous Buddha (Kassapa) and still the attained the maxium goal. Becoming a Buddha or an Arahant does not require attachment, on the contrary, it requires deattachment and equanimity.
Don't think about Buddhism as a tradicional religion, it is more like an analysis of the laws of the universe (both inside and outside), Buddha was simply explaining how things work, what the mind is, the best path to take and the consequences of good and bad deeds.
Answer: You should have confidence and gratitude towards the Buddha. If this becomes a strong attachment this will hinder your progress on the path. The story of Vakkali is a good example.
If you are dealing with Buddhism as a phylosophy then you are dealing with matters at a conceptual level. This is feeding into your perception than helping towards the cessation of perception.
Answer: If one calls oneself a Buddhist, one has already missed the point.
---  from a teacher my daughter had.
Comment: Welcome to Buddhism SE! Could you please elaborate on this? We prefer all answers here to be self-explaining. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure all future readers will also.
Comment: @THelper [This answer](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11636/254) elaborates on Toby's point.
Answer: Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?
Because Buddhism (attachment to Buddha, Sangha, Dharma) has meta-attachment:
it teaches to even let go of Buddhism itself--but only once one has mastered Buddhism's practices and not a moment sooner. To be detached from Buddhism a moment sooner would be like a HS student dropping out before he finished.
In short: Buddhism teaches detachment from Buddhism itself.
No other tradition does this.


How do national teams get status to play in test cricket by ICC?

Question: The all teams playing in ODI & T20 cricket are not able to play test cricket.
so, which conditions as per ICC norms are to be fulfilled by national team/board to get the status of test playing nation?
Answer: There's no fixed standard; it's a matter of showing over a number of years that the team would have the ability to be competitive at the very top level of cricket.
Answer: Test matches are the highest level of cricket although, statistically, their data forms part of first-class cricket. Matches are played between national representative teams with "Test status", as determined by the International Cricket Council. As of December 2014, ten national teams have Test status, the most recently promoted being Bangladesh in 2000. Zimbabwe's Test status was voluntarily suspended, because of poor performances between 2006 and 2011; it returned to competition in August 2011.[9 countries]
In January 2014, during the historic ICC meeting in Dubai, the pathway for new potential test nations was laid out with the winners of the next round of the ICC Intercontinental Cup playing a 5-day match against the bottom rank test nation. If the Associate team defeats the test nation, then they could be added as the new test country and be given full membership.
Ireland playing cricket since 1993 including 3 World cup appearance but still they have no official test status.In 2009, Ireland stated its intention to apply for Full Membership of the ICC with the aim of achieving Test status,[11th country] and restated its intention in 2012, but the 2012 plan aims to achieve Test status by 2020.
Getting test status loyalty to any bottom rank cricket nations is like winning a  Jackpot. But there cricket board should involve more international cricket and they prove there winning strategy to ICC to get a Test status and also its a pains takingly long process for lower ranking nations.
In 2014, the ICC announced the introduction of the ICC Test Challenge, which will see the holder of the Intercontinental Cup play a pair of two five-day match series against the lowest ranked test-playing nation every four years, starting in 2018


Is it better to have a slightly big or slightly small bike?

Question: I'm planning to buy a Scott Speedster S30 (This is my first road bike) and I'm looking at the size chart. I'm around 177 cm tall, and this fits exactly in between the M and L section. Just wondering, in general, is it better to choose the bigger or smaller option?
Comment: Smaller, because you can increase the length of the stem to get the reach you need.
Comment: My first "real" bike was a hair too large, and I wish it had been smaller.
Comment: try them both out, I err smaller
Comment: I'd definitely recommend trying them out, but I think a slightly smaller would be wiser, a stool can be fitted larger but you can't just saw off a piece if it were bigger
Comment: I have a Scott sporster at 180cm I'm on a L, I would go for a large if I was you.
Answer: Rivendell Bikes argues that most road bikes sold are too small.  They're probably in the minority opinion as far as bike shops go, but they have (collectively) a lot of experience in frame geometry and riding styles.
Their argument is based on their belief that most shops assume that road riders should emulate racers—experts who are willing to put up with a lot of discomfort to gain small efficiencies—and that this alienates a lot of casual riders, commuters, and tourists who would be better served by a bike that fits comfortably.

Most bikes are sold too small. We see it all the time: bars way below the saddle, the rider leaned over 35-degrees with arms straight out as his hands are on the brake hoods. If he took his hands off the bar he'd flop down and smack his nose on the stem. It's not comfortable or correct.
When you come to us for a bike, we'll ask what size you ride now, and invariably put you on a bike that's two to five centimeters bigger. You'll still have crotch clearance, but your bar will be higher, you'll lean over less, and you'll be a lot more comfortable.

and (emphasis added)

Sizing
Most riders are most comfortable when the handlebar is a few centimeters higher than the saddle. Some like it four or five inches higher. Some like the look of the bar lower than the saddle, but few riders over 35 like a low bar once they've ridden a higher one.
To achieve that bar height, it helps to start with a bike that's the largest practical size you can ride. We suggest you get the size that allows you to put the handlebar at least 2cm higher than the saddle. That works great for most people. You can always lower the bar if you find it's too high, but it's rare when that happens.

and especially relevant when dealing with sales-people:

Sometimes a bike feels funny or uncomfortable, but the salesperson tells you that you're just not used to it, or you're using muscles you haven't used before, and it takes a few weeks to adapt.
Don't believe it. There's always some getting used to it, but right off the bat, sitting on a new bike that fits you and is set up right so that it gives you a good position should feel about as natural as sitting in a chair. Your hands on the bars should feel like hands on a table in front of you. There is something to be said for breaking in your bottom or whatever, but it should feel at least reasonable right off the bat. You shouldn't have to adapt to or tolerate discomfort even a little, not even when the bike is new.

You can also read Rivendell's wider philosophy that includes some of the elements above.
Comment: Yeah, I was just talking about what I see on the floor.  With most bikes sold you would not be able to raise the bar up to reasonable height even if the bike fit, especially now that it requires a threadless extension.
Comment: But at the same time, this alienates people who have less money but rides a lot. I personally feel that most 'budget' road bikes are not aggressive enough, usually having more of an endurance geometry. Normally I fit on size 53-54, but since I don't have a lot of money, I'm forced to get endurance fit with size 50-52 to get the stack low enough. One size lower usually have big decrement on stack (1-2 cm) while having small decrement on reach (often less than 5 mm), so that with the same seat height and no spacers, and 1 cm longer stem, I can at least get long and low enough.
Comment: I would agree that the typical bike on the showroom floor has the bars too low.  I think this is because the low bar looks "meaner" on the showroom floor.
Comment: @DanielRHicks, Grant Petersen is making a stronger claim: that bikes sold and fitted to customers tend to have frames that are too small and bars mounted too low.
Comment: @DanielRHicks, Understood.
Comment: I think this is very insightful writing, but on closer reading, I'd dispute a technical point here. Petersen thinks that many riders prefer bikes with negative handlebar drop - that is, the handlebar is actually higher than the saddle. That's not just a function of frame size, it's a function of the frame's overall design. He is talking about adding a lot of frame stack, which means how high the front end of the bike is vertically over the bottom bracket, and probably taking some reach out as well. It's not just a matter of sizing up, because you gain both stack *and reach* in doing so.
Answer: If this is your first bike, go to your local bike store and have them fit you professionally. Then, ask if they have loaner bikes so that you can get a feel for the size of the bike before you invest. Some people prefer bikes on the smaller side and some prefer them a bit larger. You'll get a definite feel for this over time, but I wouldn't recommend learning this by purchasing an uncomfortable bike!
I, for example, generally ride a 56cm road bike. However, I once rode a 56cm Surly Long Haul Trucker that felt too large. Some of that feeling was the components (stem length, in particular), and some of it was the frame geometry. Road bikes are built with a variety of geometries catered to every style of riding. Each bike is as different as each respective cyclist, but riding an uncomfortable bike will ruin riding for you. Your LBS will be able to help a great deal in picking a size and adjusting everything to fit you correctly.
Lots of people ask for definite answers based on their exact leg/inseam/PBH/height-leg-ratio-distance-whatever...but most of it will come down to what fits comfortably.
Comment: Experience also plays a big part, many novices are uncomfortable on a larger frame as they feel (are?) less in control, and unstable. Riding location does as well. If you are always riding flat ground, a larger frame might be preferred over if you have a lot of windy hilly  riding to do. Also if you have come from MTB, you are probably used to a  smaller frame than is ideal on a roadie, and may initially go for the smaller (possibly wrong) size. Trying (for a longer ride, not 2 minutes around the car park) is the best thing.
Comment: @MikeSamuel: interestingly (http://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=34)
Comment: @WTHarper, are you sure the feel of the long-haul trucker wasn't the rake of your fork?  IIRC, the LHT fork is angled to smooth out small perturbations so that you can easily hold a curve, but they feel less responsive/twitchy when you do want to make small course corrections.
Comment: @MikeSamuel it probably was that, combined with the longer wheelbase and 45mm tires that were on it. My go to bike has sport-tour geometry which is what I'm used to. The LHT felt big, slow, and graceless...but I've been told that it rides better with a load (which it didn't have).
Comment: That being said, I do have much admiration for Surly.
Comment: @WTHarper Agreed.  As you lengthen the wheelbase your single will handle more like a tandem.
Comment: @WTHarper, thanks for the link.  If correct, "Chainstay length....too short, bike is too jumpy" might explain the difference between tandem handling and single handling, or maybe its just that every maneuver has to deal with the momentum of your stoker.
Comment: fully agree. Sit on and ride 'em before you part with your cash and I reckon it'll be obvious which one to go for. If you do end up between sizes (I bought a Trek road bike and was slap bang between a 54 and a 56) then you can probably get away with either. (I bought the 54 on the lbs's advice but I have since bought another bike second-hand which was a 56, and this is fine too.)
Answer: On a road bike its probably a toss up. Seats can be raised or lowered. Stems can be brought in or out. As long as the standover is comfortable, you should be fine on the large.
Comment: but the standover cannot be adjusted, whereas the stems, seatpost, etc can -- therefore I say it's a bit better to have a slightly too small bike than one that is too large.
Comment: thats why i said: "As long as the standover is comfortable"
Comment: Most modern road bikes have sloping top tube though, so stand over height doesn't matter unless it's way way off.
Answer: Here is another take coming from a 67 year old.
In my early twenties I picked up a used 55 top tube Peugeot, of course with down tube shifters. I am only 5'6", with short legs and long arms.  I got used to the stretched out feeling, so have always preferred a big bike.
   The standover has never been an issue, because I never dismount a bike by going forward.  I always lean the bike one side or the other and put down a leg.
   As I have aged and accrued various sports injuries, what has become important is to find a position that avoids aggravation.
   You need to know what parts of your body to favor.
   Remember that the shorter frame puts more pressure on the hands, elbows, mid back and neck. The longer frame puts pressure on the shoulder joint and lower back.  Sitting up straight puts more pressure on the butt, less on the hands.
You can develop chronic pain by not paying attention to what you are doing.
   Also remember that you will put pressure on your knees in different ways depending upon the relationship of where you sit and where the pedals move.  I find standing and sitting forward puts pressure on the front ligaments and bones of the knee, also an effect caused by a shorter top tube.  Remaining seated back on a saddle setback and long top tube causes me to use the muscles in back of the knee.
   Lifting the thigh from the hip joint during the stroke helps ease pressure on the knees.
   Be realistic in your biking aspirations.  Go for comfort first. It will pay in the long run.
Answer: I just returned a bike that was slightly too large. The issue with stand over height is a safety concern for your personal parts and to avoid injury (don't just 'stand over' it, lower yourself a bit, see how far you have before you might touch if you had to dismount quickly in that fashion), but the more relevant measurement for me ended up being the 'effective top tube' length (yes, exactly what it sounds like, the horizontal distance parallel to the ground ignoring the actual angle of the top tube). I was reaching too far forward for the handle bars and this was causing strain on my back and pressure on my wrists. I just bought at the top of my budget so I didn't have cash for a new stem, etc.
Lowering the seat on the larger size helped but it was still too far to reach the bars. I stopped at the point where the pedaling would have become silly, so technically I could have lowered the seat more to have a shorter reach distance, but then the other issue appears.
Indeed, I may end up getting a longer seat post, but that's not as important as avoiding back strain.
I went to several LBSs in the area and all of them paired me with the larger size, partly b/c I was just at the edge of height range for the size down, so they didn't want me to get something too small. But bodies are particular and I would suggest a comparison ride of about 20-30 minutes on each size (that's what it took me in the end, and this was a big 'first' for me too, so I don't have my 'correct feel' honed yet) to figure out what really works. The 'parking lot' test definitely failed me this time around, and will likely continue to do so for future purchases. You need time to settle-in to feel what really works, especially if you're new to purchasing (actually sport activity experience aside).
Comment: Yeah, the seat should be adjusted to get proper leg extension, not to compensate for top tube length.  Stand-over height as a criterion only works to the extent that your legs and torso are "typical" in proportion.
Comment: And, of course, the rational solution on a non-custom bike -- to take the next smaller size, then raise the seat and bar -- is made less practical by the way bars are done:  It's very hard (ie, requires work and maybe extra parts on the part of the LSB) to raise a bar up very high, due to the marketing-driven prejudice towards a "low and mean" look (for non-"comfort" bikes).
Comment: Lowering the seat will also put you in a more forward position thus closer reach since the seat tube is sloping backward. And with raising the stem you will also get closer reach because the head tube also slopes backward, and should be better because it affect handling less than altering the stem length.
Comment: Yeah, I'm slightly far enough outside typical it's a problem with most everything concerning the word 'size' (lol).
Comment: Try a bike with a "ladies frame"
Comment: I would just like to draw out that "I just bought at the top of my budget so I didn't have cash for a new stem" is a strong caveat on this answer. Certainly top tube length is an underrated measurement. However, swapping a shorter stem onto the larger frame might be the preferred fitting for a significant number of people.
Answer: You can raise the saddle and handlebars on a medium to meet your needs, but lowering them on a large might be tricky, depending on the bike's design.
Also, there's standover to consider.  There should be at least an inch between the top of the frame and your "gentleman area" when you're standing forward of the saddle with the bike between your legs and your feet flat to the ground (not standing on tip toes).  If you can manage that okay on the large bike then it should be okay for you.  If not, go for the medium.
Best bet is to actually try out the two different sizes for yourself if at all possible.  Ideally you'd want to take them for a test drive, but failing that, at least do a standover test of both sizes in a bike shop.
Answer: A bike which is too small can be gnarly, a bike too large can be cumbersome and unwieldy.  If you can, test ride both of them if possible!  Or test ride a similar bike from the same manufacturer, in the size you want to compare.  I test rode a 19" and 21" Orange Gringo mountain bike, it took two 5-10 minute rides on both to realise which one felt right.  Don't be intimidated by shop assistants, it's your money and bike, faff and be 100% happy.
Also it depends on what use the bike will have, if your going to race the bike the fit is more important and a shorter bike might serve you better - as you'll be able to get out the seat easier.
Comment: Could you define what you mean by "gnarly"?
Comment: But "That was gnarly, Dude!" would be saying that "that" was extra-good in some circles.
Comment: Under speed I personally find smaller bikes a little over-sensitive.  Gnarled(gnarly) definition = (of trees) full of or covered with gnarls; bent; twisted.  So in effect with an ill fitting small bike you could find yourself up all twisted up.
Comment: @DanielRHicks Noted!  I suppose you could say "That trail was gnarly!" for a a mountain bike trail that was tight, twisty, and mean.
Comment: In a literary or poetic sense it could mean 'more difficult than preconceived,' as in 'the road to Valhalla was gnarly for the reluctant Valkyrie' or 'I had a gnarly time at the station'. In this way I just thought wonea meant 'tricky,' as in 'more difficult to ride than you think before getting on,' which easily translates to a personally difficult time with the spirit of the bicycle throwing you off in vengeful spite for straining its steel by being larger than it feels its rider should be… I thought it was totally obvious, and even if that's not what he meant, it's still 'right', teehee!
Answer: As several have pointed out, it is best to get something that actually fits you but with that in mind, it is better to go a little smaller than a little larger of a frame. For example, look at George Hincapie. He is 191 CM or 6 foot 3 and rides a bike that is just a little bigger than my 56 CM and I am just 5' 10 or 155 CM. He rides a 57.5. Putting on a longer stem and setting the seat back as far as it can go and pulling out the seat tube is how he fits on a bike that is just a tad bigger than mine while having a lot longer legs and body than I do. If he got something more like a 61-63, his bike would be heavier and not as stiff.
It also depends on a few other factors. The length of the top tube, riding preferences, riding style. Keep in mind that on a typical bike, if you got one that is smaller and just added a longer stem and pulled out the seat post as far as you could go, handling will also be a bit different because your center of gravity would be different than what it was built for. It wouldn't be as easy to go downhill, steering would be a bit more squirmy.
All bikes are built different. I have been on 56 CM's that were too big and too small for me in the stock format and even though I have owned my own bike for years, I am always adjusting the fit according to where I am in the season or how I feel on the bike.
Answer: It's all about personal preference. I bought slightly too small in a 29er mountain bike. It's slightly lighter than the larger one and more agile, though the seat was too low for me and I had to get an extra long seatpost. This I found out by buying before trying. I recommend trying first.
Answer: I wouldn't pay too much attention to sizing charts and the like. They are OK, but we are all different in how we balance. I'm just under 6 feet tall yet I ride an extra large Boardman. As someone said, with seat adjustments it works well and I like being up high. The critical thing is to get the right position regarding knee to peddle, to make sure the handle bars are the right height with the correct length stem to avoid back pain, and being able to comfortably get your toes on the ground whilst sitting on the bike. In other words, try them and see.
Answer: The most important thing is that you are comfortable riding it. In my experience a slightly smaller offers the benefit of more agility & lighter weight. However where you will be riding is a factor as well.
As most of my riding is in city streets with traffic I find utility in a smaller fit for the above reasons, I tend to ride with my bars significantly below my seat height but not so far that I cannot grab the top of the handlebars & ride upright cruiser style. This gives me a reasonable balance between power transfer from the lower position to comfort when I have a load on my back in the upright position.
However, riding like this out in the country can get old pretty quick. Mainly I think because in city riding there is a lot of stop/go & opportunities to adjust where as country riding tends to be more distance traveling.
The bottom line however is still: If you cannot find a 'perfect' fit, which feels more comfortable to your style
Answer: You can (almost) always make a small bike fit bigger, but you can only make a big bike fit so small. If you're a 'tweener you can typically go either direction. Take sizing charts with more than a grain of salt.
Answer: It comes down to how much cash that you want to spend after buying a bike in order to set up "properly" ... As an alternate to having a custom built frame.
I would favor the smaller frame but likely replace the stem, seatpost and any other component necessary to place me in a position that I like.  Stock:. Maybe the larger frame as it is more likely to fit off the shelf.  However, smaller frames are more responsive than the equivalent larger frame, are stiffer, accelerate faster (IMHO) and are generally more fun.  The exception might be for long distance touring which allow the rider to stretch out over distances and necessary for a balanced load when touring.
Answer: I believe that sizing down if you're in between sizes is the conventional wisdom. Some answers have alluded to this.
You do need to be able to get the saddle up to your preferred height without exceeding the minimum adjustment limit of the seatpost. You also need to be able to get your handlebars to your preferred riding position, which will involve placing spacers under the stem; if you choose a frame that is too small, it is possible you will exceed the maximum number of spacers recommended. Chances are that neither of these will happen if you are in between two sizes, however. They should only happen if you are trying to ride a bike that is much too small.
Frame size and handling
The current set of answers don't appear to have discussed how the bike's handling will be affected by changing size. This answer focuses on the changes in bike handling. Overall, the change in handling should be small. Assuming you can achieve your desired handlebar and saddle position on both sizes, which direction to go may depend on your personal preferences.
Longer stem = slower steering
If you have two frames of different sizes that are otherwise identical, then you will have a longer stem on the smaller frame. The stem has a relatively small effect on the bike's handling relative to the other important parameters. However, all else equal, a longer stem will place more of the rider's weight over the front wheel. Moreover, on a longer stem, the handlebar has to be moved a greater distance to produce the same steering arc. Both of these will slow the front wheel's response to steering input. In contrast,  for short stems, the first Cyclingtips article I cited says that

A short stem, by contrast, will shift the weight of the rider back over the frame, unweighting the front wheel so that the steering will be a little lighter. As already mentioned, this won't to do much to overhaul the steering if the bike has a slack head angle and/or lots of trail, but it can improve manoeuvrability, which explains (at least in part) the current fervour for short stems on MTB (where the amount of frame reach has been growing in recent years). It also explains how a short stem can render a bike near-uncontrollable if it already has quick steering.

That said, considering the gaps between frame sizes, the different stem lengths you'd have to use should not create marked differences in handling.
Smaller bikes may be more stable
One other thing to consider is that not all else may be equal between bikes of different sizes. Trail is a key parameter in bike handling. Generally, bikes with more trail are more stable. They tend to bias themselves upright. It can take a bit more effort to lean them into a turn, but they are easier to ride in a straight line and won't get twitchy. It's been my observation that for most production bikes, the amount of trail tends to decrease with frame size. For example, the 49cm Specialized Venge has 63mm trail. The 52cm and 54cm Venge have 58mm. The 56cm and 58cm frames have 55mm of trail, and the 61cm frame has 52mm of trail. If you go down a bike size, you may go to a size with slightly different trail, and this will be more stable than the larger size.
The conventional wisdom may be that smaller frames are more agile. I realize both the points I raised above contradict this. Professional bike riders are known to ride relatively small frames. I believe that they want to get their handlebars as low as possible. However, the second Cyclingtips article I linked above, which focuses on stem length, has this to say:

"The longer the stem," explains Tom Kellogg, "the more the rider's weight pushing forward on the bars tends to keep the front wheel pointing forward." As a consequence, the bike becomes more stable, especially at high speeds, which accounts to some extent why pro riders normally opt for a shorter frame and a longer stem. The extra stability also helps with the control of high profile race wheels in windy conditions.

Again, the changes involved should be relatively minor. Also, humans can generally adapt to small changes in handling. Going from a 56cm to a 54cm bike is not going to change a performance road bike into something that handles like a touring bike, or even an endurance road bike.
Standover height may be a relatively minor consideration also
A last item to consider may be standover height: when you stand with your feet on the ground, how much space is there between your groin and the top tube? The larger frame will have less standover height. Georgena Terry, who has designed custom bikes for women for a long time, argues that standover height is quite important because you risk hitting your groin in a sudden stop. I am told that this is quite painful for women, and it will obviously be painful for men. This factor would also bias you towards taking the smaller frame.
However, standover height may not be important for experienced road cyclists. I would definitely pay attention to it on mountain bikes. However, some posters on this Reddit thread, this BikeRadar forum thread, and this Bike Forums thread argue that it's not important, because you will never hit the top tube as you ride normally (at least on the road). I had a cyclocross bike with essentially no standover clearance at one point, and I never hit the top tube. However, it has been shown that men tend to underestimate risk compared to women, so you should assess this for yourself.
Comment: Trail is a function of the head tube angle and fork offset. The reason the trail differs on the different size of the Venge is because they steepend the headtube angle as the sizes go up? Why would they do this? Because wheelbase factors into stability, so to make a longer bike feel as lively as a short bike they need to increase the headangle. If the headangles (and fork offset, which tends to be fixed) stay the same a longer bike feels more stable.
Answer: My advice to anyone is to not buy a bike based off the sizing chart. Brand to brand or even model to model the sizing chart isn't going to be consistent. If possible go to a store and actually sit on the bike you are interested in or attempt to find someone with that bike so you can sit on theirs.
As others have stated, standover is a key measurement that can't be changed. You have to be able to stand over the bike comfortably. Stems, seat position and even crank length can be adjusted to some degree, so as long as you are close enough you can get it comfortable.
Once you are more in tune with what you are comfortable with a bike then you'll be able to better judge what size you'll fit by the geometry charts. I can guess how a bike will fit a lot more accurately from the reach and horizontal top tube length than a sizing chart.
As an annecdote, when I was purchasing a bike recently I was selecting between two models. I knew that one felt great in a "large". The sizing chart recommended the same size in both models, however after looking at the geometry I found that the XL in the other model was nearly the same geometry as the large in the other model. I contacted the company and they confirmed that people generally sized up in the other model despite the sizing charts being identical.
Personally I will select the largest size I'll be comfortable on. I prefer the longest wheelbase I can fit because there isn't much you can do to lengthen a bike (yes, an angle andjustable headset will increase trail and bike length slightly but not dramatically). I like the stability of a long bike. When I was younger I preferred smaller bikes. Preferences can change.
For a road bike, a professional fitting can help make sure your ergonomics are correct and that you are able to achieve that on your selected size. Some bike stores offer this as a free service, you can also hire professionals at hundreds of dollars (which is generally geared towards athletes).
Answer: I have two bikes. An older (1980s) Nishiki, heavier bike chromoloy frame that my LSB claims is too big (probably equivalent to a 58cm), and a new light aluminum 56cm Cannondale that feels too small but that is my "exact" fit according to the sizing charts. (I'm 5'10" with a 30-inch inseam.) Anyway, the bigger bike is my preferred bike. It might have to do with a longer wheelbase (3-4 inches longer), but the bigger bike performs better. Fast going downhills (faster than the Cannondale and everyone else I have ever ridden with) and much more stable. Quick on starts too. Slower climbing and not as many gears. I know there are a lot variables here, but I think size (or wheelbase) is the most important one. And don't think sizing charts and LSB's have all the answers.
Comment: Modern fit charts tend to favor an aero position over comfort.  This means a shorter reach and lower stack and more back curvature. The older "French" fit style is about a size up compared to modern fits and positions the rider more upright.  I am not surprise you like the bigger fit, it is more consistent with what the average rider wants and needs.


Why did Yonatan arrange the secret arrow sign with David?

Question: In Shmuel Alef (20:20–22) Yonatan arranges a whole scheme to secretly inform David whether or not it's safe for him to return. However, after the sign is given that it's not safe (20:40), Yonatan sends away his boy and David comes out of hiding and the two embrace. Why did Yonatan have to arrange the whole secret sign? He could have gone to the field, shot some arrows, sent his boy away, and told David what the situation was. There was no need for the secret code.
Answer: Radak (to vv. 20 and 36) and Ralbag (to v. 37) seem to take a bit of a different tack than the answer given by morah hochman. They say that indeed Yonasan at first figured that he won't be able to speak with David in person because there might be people around, and therefore he'd have to use the signals. Once he saw (after he was done with those) that indeed no one else had come besides him and his servant, then he changed plans and sent his servant home, at which point David realized that the coast was clear and came out to see Yonasan.
Comment: Not the same. Yehonatan told David to hide in that spot presumably because it was a good spot to hide, i.e. a spot where he is not likely to be discovered because not many people pass. To me Yehonatan seems unsure of whether or not he'll be able to ditch the boy with him and therefore makes the signal. However, when he carries out the plan, it seems obvious that Yehonatan would know that he could just send away the boy. So that's what I never got, but I like Rav Bazak's answer.
Comment: I don't like that answer. Yehonatan told David he would come with his servant and do the secret code, so it seems like he was planning it would just be the two of them.
Comment: @Mark: sure, but it's not like he could prevent other people from being there too. (If I plan to meet you in Times Square, it would be rather rash of me to assume that we'll have any privacy.)
Answer: Rabbi Amnon Bazak explains in his lecture that this seemingly useless act of telling David in a secret way to run away and then meeting David in person shows the special and unique relationship between David and Yonatan.  After Yonatan uses the arrows to send his message he is overcome with love for David and therefore risks his life to see David and embrace him one last time.  Yonatan's plan was not to see David, only to send him this secret message however Yonatan could not contain himself and had to see his best friend one last time.


How to measure the Aircraft cabin air quality?

Question: Is there any tool or mechanism to do quantitative analysis of aircraft cabin/cockpit air quality?
Answer: A few years ago, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority convened an  Expert Panel on Aircraft Air Quality.
From page 138 of the report they discuss the available monitoring devices. From my brief readthrough, there were no real monitoring devices for this purpose at the time (2009) however research was being conducted.
Comment: its specifically for the Bleed air contamination but if we have some other ways which have contaminated the Cabin air quality either CO, or if some passenger is able to get some liquid poisonous gas in the permissible limits of less than 100ml.


A definite article before government institutions

Question: I know English uses a definite article with the names of government institutions (eg: the White House, the State Capitol and the Pentagon, etc.). But I don't know if it's the same case with the names of schools, colleges and universities that are run by a particular local government. The college I go to is also a government institution and it's name is "Government Polytechnic". Would it be grammatical, if I used a definite article before my college name?
(Note: There is one such college in each district of my state.)
Answer: Probably not, although as it is a proper name, any institution can call itself whatever it likes to.
In the U.S., most colleges do not use the article, such as Columbia University, Harvard University, etc.  However, what most people call Ohio State makes a point of letting anyone who will listen that they are The Ohio State University (even though their normal initialism is OSU, not TOSU.  As per Wikipedia--The Ohio State University, commonly referred to as Ohio State or OSU, is a public research university in Columbus, Ohio.
However, when the word College, University or the like comes first, most people will insert the article in everyday speech:  I went to the College of New Rochelle.  Wikipedia says--The University of Kentucky (UK) is a public co-educational university in Lexington, Kentucky.  (Note the lack of bolding on "the".)
Other exceptions do exist:  Wikipedia states--The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, commonly referred to simply as Cooper Union, is a privately funded college located in Cooper Square in the East Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City.
Comment: The name "Government Polytechnic" doesn't consist of a proper noun, it just consists of two common nouns like (eg: Post Office, Police Station, City Hospital.) We use a definite article before the above examples, but why can't I use a definite article before it?
Comment: Make note of how other people in your area refer to your school.  The guidelines in my answer are not hard and fast rules, just tendencies.  Plus, they are U.S. examples only.  In the U.S., we say "the Post Office" too, because each building is part of one nationwide system that can only operate if it has thousands of locations.  Here, even in a state university system with many locations (such as the State University of New York), each location is somewhat autonomous and has its own name (e.g. SUNY at Albany) . That contracts to "Univ. at Albany," or in context, "I go to the Univ. at Albany."
Comment: This reminds me of my alma mater, which insisted on calling itself "The George Washington University" with the "The" at the front.


How to mic and amplify an accordion for live performance?

Question: Derived from this question that ended up not being about accordion amplification.
Which options do I have to mic and amplify accordions for live performance? Are dynamic mics on a stand recommendable? How do I accurately capture the instrument?
Answer: High budget solution
The only very effective way to amplify an accordion is with multiple microphones attached to the accordion itself. On this picture you can see three, but I've usually seen people using four microphones (two on each side):

Remember that the sound of an accordion does not come from one central spot; each note comes from a different place in a fairly large area. I used to be the accordion player in a very amateurish band, where we used a Shure 57 microphone to amplify it. The very high and low notes were too far from the mic, while the middle range ones were amplified too loudly. With one single microphone, there is no good way to solve that.
Additionally, using one microphone limits you to the right-handed notes only; the bass notes are all off limits, as they come out from the left side of the accordion. Additionally additionally, a microphone on a stand is quite difficult to work with, since the accordion is typically an instrument that doesn't stay in exactly one place.
Sadly, since you're talking about two to four microphones per accordion, this can be a little too pricey for your particular situation. Nonetheless, for the sake of this question's usefulness (which SE is about), I am going to state that this solution is the only really good one.
Low budget solution
In case you want to save a lot of money, you can simply hire these things for this one day. I do advise you to test the system before trying to use it on stage though; the more complicated your microphone system gets, the more can go wrong.
Very low budget solution
Lastly, if you are really not able to spend any money on this, simply use your Shure SM57 microphone. In this case, try to make the accordionist aware of how to play when using a microphone on a stand. Here's a picture of yours truly, where you can see what I mean. (Please do ignore the awesome hat -- let's just say that this is part of some traditional Belgium dress-up culture.)

Firstly, you'll notice that the left hand notes are not being amplified, so there's no use in even playing them. On this picture, I seem to be doing a good job at pretending I am, though. Secondly (and just as importantly), the high notes come out from the lower end of the accordion, and the low notes come out from the top. On the picture you can see that I'm playing high notes, so I'm holding the accordion up a bit higher, aligning the lowest end with the microphone. If the accordionist does not do this, you'll have a very hard time giving every note the same amplification.
Answer: Any dynamic mic should work. I have seen accordionists use Sm57s in the past. The instrument is quite loud, and occupies a wide swath of the spectrum. Some folks opt for two microphones - one on each side of the accordian. Some companies sell clip on mics for accordians, but I imagine these are more for convenient movement than for good sound. Some accordian players will put piezo transducers inside the accordian itself. These often go under the bass mechanism, and the grill. Just my opinion, but this probably won't sound as good as a dynamic placed outside the instrument.
Comment: Clip-on microphones are used because they are the only ones that can capture every note in the same volume, and because a mic on a stand can not follow the movements of the accordion's left hand part. I have downvoted this answer because it's simply incorrect.
Answer: You are probably best off with several small condenser mics mounted on the accordion itself.  That setup is pretty impervious to movements.
For studio recordings, one might consider big membrane condensor mics in a distance making the movement of the accordion less of an issue.
However, my experience is that this setup works bad for tremolo registrations (I have a quite shallow three-reed tremolo that is quite compelling when listened to directly) which sound much harsher than in reality.  My theory is that the large membranes are susceptible to partial vibration modes when excited with the somewhat contradictory nature of tremolo.
It also turns out that tremolo is quite hard to properly reproduce for MP3 at any but the highest quality settings.  Ogg/Vorbis degrades quite more gracefully in my experience.  But that's a different issue.
The distances for stand-mounted small membrane condensor mics when taking movement into account are unfavorable with regard to noise (recording) and feedback (live).
So there really is not all that much of an alternative to small-membrane instrument-mounted mics.  If you are not recording the (moving) bass side, using stand-mounted small membranes might be a consideration.  However, it requires discipline.
Answer: I have a great solution, playing accordion for years as well as hammond organ often at the same time.  I had problems with micing accordions I tried everything to keep up with the rest of the band in terms of volume level before feedback.  I used expensive condensers custom mounted to the outside, High end accordion pick-ups but the best thing I ever did and will never go back is to mount a Shure PE56 capusle which is an old sm57 style mic right
inside the accordion mounted to the reed block.  I have the perfect balance between left and right hand no feedback and even sound throughout did not think this would work at first but my God it is awesome.  I play Zydeco music, as well all other types from country to Rock playing keys and accordion and I can tell you I have no longer any problems with the accordion keeping up.  I do get a little more key click and noise especially if I smack the bellows shut quickly but hey it is Rock and Roll baby and you can make it part of your sound.
Answer: I think the most elegant way to amplify an accordion is by installing an internal microphone system. I work at the Acoustas Co. so I am partial to the system we make however we have tested all available systems internal and external and the AMx11HD and AMx7HD is the most sound solution to amplify an accordion.
Answer: I've been using the Thomann ACM-01 pickup system, https://www.thomann.de/gb/thomann_acm01.htm and I am quite happy about it. It has decent sound, it is simple and at a reasonable price. I loved it because I didn't need to do any modification to my instrument - you can always take it off if you don't want it anymore without any damage to the instrument. The difficult part is to figure out an efficient way to install it on your particular instrument making sure the cables don't get in your way.
You could combine it with a wireless system, such as https://www.thomann.de/gb/akg_wms_40_mini_dual_instrument.htm, in which case you are totally wireless and amplified.


How do I copy a wordpress database?

Question: I'm trying to migrate my wordpress site from an old host to a new host. The Wordpress Codex says "you can move by just copying your files and database." Copying the files is easy enough, but how do I copy my database? I'm sure I'm just not looking in the right places, but I can't find any documentation on this anywhere.
Answer: The same WordPress Codex has a page for backing up your database with phpmyadmin; see http://codex.wordpress.org/Backing_Up_Your_Database
You must export and import the database itself - and not do a posts export from the dashboard - to retain all settings, image URLs, etc.
Either use phpmyadmin in your host control panel, or you can use it as a plugin called Portable phpmyadmin: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/portable-phpmyadmin/
But if you use the plugin, you may have to try an older version, as the newer alpha version doesn't work on some web hosts due to host restrictions.
And, if you are changing domains as well as hosts, you need to correctly change URLs in the database. interconnectit.com WordPress Serialized PHP Search Replace Tool
Comment: "How to move wordpress.." link is dead..
Answer: Most hosting companies have a mysql viewer like phpmyadmin installed which lets you export the database. You can also export it by going to export under tools in the admin panel although this will not export some settings (plugin settings), so it is much better to use phpmyadmin if you can.

How do I copy a wordpress database?


What are the settings to allow me to access the Ubuntu IRC from empathy?

Question: I want to chat with other Ubuntu-ers but I'm lost on how to do this properly. Do I have to sign up anywhere? Is there only one Ubuntu channel?
Answer: Step by Step Guide to connect to an IRC room
Launch Empathy:

From the global menu Edit - Accounts click the + button and change the chat to IRC as shown.  Enter your nickname and click the Login button.

After a few seconds you should see the green icon now blinking indicating that you have connected to the server

Next action is to join a Room.
Enter the room name - all rooms start with # e.g. #ubuntu.  For a list of Ubuntu rooms, see the link below.

After joining the chat window should open displaying all chat-room users and the current chat activity.

Useful Link

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/ChannelList
Answer: IRC channels of ubuntu are on Freenode AFAIK. You can use empathy or any other irc client.
<code>/join #ubuntu</code>
If you are registered in irc it's better. Here is the way on setting up nick on freenode. Here is basic idea of irc on ubuntu.  I recommend x-chat for irc rather than empathy.
edit: list of irc channels related to ubuntu
You don't really have to be registered to irc to use it. But some channels only allow registered users. You can choose a nickname/username and enter. If it is already taken you will be allocated a guest id otherwise you can register the same nickname.
Answer: You need to have telepathy-idle installed, and you need to have at least one non-IRC account (see Gnome bug #596086 for more details). Then you can connect to the IRC server by creating an account, and join a channel by using the Room > Join room dialog.
Source


Who chooses test questions in the review queue?

Question: Some questions in the review queue are there only to test the reviewer. Who chooses those?
Comment: All of the proposed edits that were tests that I've ever seen were edits that were absurd. I've seen several tests in the review queue where I voted to close a question and I was told that it was a test and I passed. I've seen only one where I voted to leave a question open that turned out to be a test and it said I failed, and not only that I failed but that the question was seriously flawed. I read the question patiently and carefully with that in mind and continued to think it should be reopened. Conjoin that with the overwhelming fact that decisions to close questions$\,\ldots\qquad$
Comment: $\ldots\,$on mse are generally done ineptly except in the most obvious cases, and it's clear that the "test" is garbage.
Comment: I think a side-effect (even if occasionally contentious answers/questions occur) is "to keep reviewers on their toes"  (not an auto pilot). I've been very occasionally off put by what I think to be a poorly chosen model for such reviews, but I think it does more good than harm.
Answer: From the capital-M Meta FAQ on review audits,

Review audits are chosen automatically. The system isn't perfect, meaning that every so often a post slips through normal community detection, causing the system to expect the wrong type of action against a post.

The answer goes into a little bit more detail about the criteria, for some of these. For example, questions that are "highly-voted with no close votes" can be chosen as tests where the reviewer is expected to keep vote to leave open.
Comment: Don't get me wrong; but currently, I think the current "suggested edit" tests are so absurd that only a zombie can miss it's absurdity.  Are there any ways that the pool of potential test questions in the "suggested edit" queue" which are actually significantly improved by an editor, so that those rejecting it (in a test) would see $$\bf{\Large\text{STOP!}}$$
Comment: Why are votes to close as a duplicate never tested?  Why aren't  suggested edits tested with more realistic edits  (any one who can't spot a dismal edit (which in testing, should all be rejected) should be banned from the suggested edit review, given the yawn-triggering edits proposed currently)?
Comment: With respect to the comment above, I have **never seen, as a test suggested edit post, a post which should be approved, and not rejected**.  Currently, the rule of thumb is that when confronting preposterous (suggested) edits, always reject it.
Comment: I agree that the edit testing could be improved a lot, and should involve some sort of real-world examples instead of the random nonsense it currently is. But one issue, I suppose, is that edits are pretty much never reviewed by more than 3 people. On the other hand, close/leave-open audits are based not only on the 5+ review votes, but also the overall score on the post. There's a lot more data there.
Comment: user296602  I do acknowledge those points you make.  So it would require other sorts of data, which isn't so readily counted.  When is SE getting into the artificial intelligence business? ;)
Comment: @amWhy Sounds like a good question for [AI SE](https://ai.stackexchange.com/) :)


Subvarieties that dominate a dominant morphism

Question: Suppose we're given a dominant morphism of irreducible algebraic varieties over an algebraically closed field $k$, $f:X \rightarrow Y$, then why do there exist subvarieties $Z$ of $X$ with $\dim Z=\dim Y$ and $f(Z)$ dense in $Y$?  One idea I've heard is to resrict to the affine case, so $X=\text{Spec }A$ and $Y=\text{Spec }B$ and then consider $A\otimes \overline{K(B)}$, where $\overline{K(B)}$ is the algebraic closure of the function field of $B$.  One can obtain sections of the inclusion of $\overline{K(B)}$ into $A\otimes \overline{K(B)}$ by considering $\overline{K(B)}$-rational points in $X_{\overline{K(B)}}$ (this follows from the Nullstellensatz), which really lie in some finite extension of $L$ of $K(B)$.  So we consider the integral closure $C$ of $B$ in $L$ and this gives us a finite morphism from $Y'=\text{Spec }C$ to $Y$, but I don't know how this eventually gives us an answer to the original question.  If anyone knows how to continue this argument, or a nicer argument on how to get the result, please let me know.-Thanks
Answer: More generally, let $f:X\to Y$ be a dominant morphism of finite type of schemes, with $Y$ irreducible. Let $y$ be the generic point of $Y$. Then the fiber $X_y$ is a nonempty scheme of finite type over $\kappa(y)$. Let $z\in X_y$ be a closed point. By Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, $\kappa(z)$ is a finite extension of  $\kappa(y)$. Let $Z$ be the Zariski closure of $\{z\}$: this is an irreducible closed subset of $X$, which dominates $Y$ (the image contains the generic point) and the function field extension  $\kappa(z)/\kappa(y)$ is finite, which implies $\dim Z=\dim Y$ if $Y$ is of finite type over a field.
This argument is of course close to the original idea. Sándor's proof is also OK but uses linear systems, hence works well only under quasiprojective assumptions (or after reducing to this case, e.g. by taking affine open sets).
Answer: Assume that $\dim X>\dim Y$, i.e., that the relative dimension of $f$ is positive.
Let $H\subseteq X$ be a general member of a base point free linear system. Then $H$ does not contain any irreducible component of the general fiber of $f$ and hence the relative dimension of the restriction morphism $f|_H:H\to Y$ is strictly less than the relative dimension of $X$. Since $\dim H=\dim X-1$, this can only happen if the relative dimension of $f|_H$ is exactly $1$ less than the relative dimension of $f$ and $f|_H$ is dominant. Replace $X$ with $H$ and repeat as long as the initial assumption ($\dim X>\dim Y$) is satisfied. The process will stop when you reach an appropriate $Z$.
Comment: Re: Laurent's comment: I assumed, as stated in the question, that we have already restricted to the affine case. I probably should have said so. :)


Is Lord Nityananda the incarnation of Sri Balarama?

Question: Is Lord Nityananda the incarnation of Sri Balarama?
Comment: Sorry, could you tell who Lord Nithyananda is.
Answer: According to Chaitanya Charitamrta and Gaudiya Vaishnava view, yes he is:

sei kṛṣṇa navadvīpe śrī-caitanya-candra
sei balarāma saṅge śrī-nityānanda [CC - 1.5.6]
Meaning
That original Lord Kṛṣṇa appeared in Navadvīpa as Lord Caitanya, and Balarāma appeared with Him as Lord Nityānanda.
sarva-rūpe āsvādaye kṛṣṇa-sevānanda
sei balarāma — gaura-saṅge nityānanda  [CC - 1.5.11]
Meaning
In all the forms He tastes the transcendental bliss of serving Kṛṣṇa. That same Balarāma is Lord Nityānanda, the companion of Lord Gaurasundara.

The 5th chapter of Adi Lila in Chaitanya Charitamrita describes in detail about Lord Nityananda Balarama.
Comment: For some reason people who accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna are more than who do not accept. So added the "Gaudiya Vaishnava view" clause to the answer.
Comment: You should mention that these claims in the Chaitanya Charitamrita are controversial, since lots of people don't even accept that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is an incarnation of Vishnu.
Comment: Why do you say "According to Chaitanya Charitamrta and Gaudiya Vaishnava view"?  That makes it sound as if the Chaitanya Charitamrita is not a Gaudiya Vaishnava document.
Answer: In addition to the above answer, there are also a few scriptural injunctions that the Goswamis quote to support that Lord Nityananda is Balaram Himself
Vayu Purana states:

balaramo mamaivamsah, so 'pi mat-prstham esyati;
  nityananda iti khyato nyasi-cudamanih ksitau
"In the Vayu Purana, the Lord tells Brahma: "Lord Balarama, who is My first expansion and non-different from Me will also appear by My side as Lord Shri Nityananda. He will become the crest jewel of all renunciants on the earth.""
krtvavadhuta-vesam sa, dharman bhagavatan bahun;
  grahayitva janan ittham grhinam asramam tatah.
"Assuming the dress of an avadhuta, He will freely distribute bhagavata dharma i.e. love of God. He will distribute this pure love through various means and deliver all the living entities. He will do so first as a brahmacari and later as a householder."

Ananta Samhita states:

nityanando maha-kayo, bhutva mat-kirtane ratah;
  vimudhan bhakti-rahitan, mama bhaktan karisyasi.
"When I appear in Navadvipa in Kali-yuga, You will become Nityananda. You will have a very tall, beautiful and large body, and You will be constantly absorbed in chanting My name and glories. In this way, by Your causeless mercy You will convert many bewildered fools who are devoid of devotion into My pure unalloyed devotees."

Note however, this verses are generally not accepted by any school other then Gaudiyas. If you believe that Lord Nityanada is Balaram Himself, then you are in essence a Gaudiya also. Jaya Nitai!
Comment: The Goswamis quote the verse tin heir commentaries without giving numbers (they just say in Vayu Purana....). I am guessing the verse in not found in current editions of Vayu Purana hence why its generally only accepted by Gaudiyas. However on the basis of the Goswami's saintly character, I am willing to vouch for the authenticity of the verse.
Comment: Which chapter of Vayu Purana has that verse?
Comment: These are not quoted by goswamis. They believed Sri Chaitanya and Nityananda as incarnations. Whatever quotations they have given are about chaitanya mahaprabhu and that too are indirect predictions. Who quoted the verses in the above answer is a question mark.. Atleast till the time of baladeva vidyabhusana, they are not quoted.. of course once you accept chaitanya as incarnation, all other things are automatically accepted..


Why is creating a new TCP connection regarded as expensive?

Question: I do not understand why creating a new TCP connections is considered an expensive task. Basically setting up a new connection refers to performing TCP's 3-way handshake. So that's sending two packets and receiving one. Considering that thousands of (data-)packets will follow, the handshake can't be the expensive part. Can it?
Comment: Also consider the new connection creation might not be limited to only the TCP handshake.  For example SSL adds a lot of negotiation of authentication and encryption details on top.
Comment: Maybe due to the CPU and memory usage of connections?
Comment: @joeqwerty I understand that a new TCP connection usually also means creating a new process/thread on e.g. the server, but that's not because of TCP, but due to the application.
Comment: **If** thousands of data packets follow, the handshaks isn't the expensive part. But why not use a new TCP connection for each data chunk? Because creating a new TCP connection is expensive. That's *why* you establish one connection and then use it for thousands of chunks of data.
Answer: I believe, generally speaking, that opening a TCP connection is considered expensive when compared to the ability to reuse already open connections by keeping it open.  You are correct, opening a connecting will take only 3 packets/turns, but that time - 3 x your RTT - is far beyond the cost of reusing an already open connection, which is far closer to 0.  The disparity grows even faster if you're opening and closing connections frequently.
You are certainly correct though, when compared to the number of turns you're going to see as the application "does it's thing," those 3 packets can seem pretty small, but again, it depends on how you want to compare the options AND how your application behaves/how many times you plan on opening a connection.
Edit
If we're talking UDP vs. TCP though, Cheekaleek here is 100% correct - the overhead of is massive in the long term when compared to the connectionless operations of UDP
Comment: A good example I've seen in a packet-trace: A reused MySQL connection can turn queries around in 2-5ms. A series of ElasticSearch queries turns queries around in 17-25ms, most of that time was in connection setup (including initial DNS lookup).
Answer: It's certainly more overhead than sending a UDP packet and not caring what happens past that.
TCP also comes with more header data, and maintains the connection state, which will consume resources.
So yes, compared to UDP, TCP is more expensive, but expensive is a relative term.
"TCP connections are a girl's best friend???"
Comment: `"TCP connections are a girl's best friend???"`  No, they're not.  I got a girl thousands of those for her birthday and all she did was stop returning my emails. :(
Answer: It's not just sending and receiving packets. Additional memory has to be allocated and at a minimum networking state tables updated at each step until the session is established. Not to mention any additional security checks that may be performed (route spoof protection, etc).
Just using some example numbers (because we're not talking about any specific operating system) if a packet for an established session has a CPU cost of 1 unit, the cost of a new session may be 10x or 100x that cost in the number of operations performed. Most hardware firewalls that I've worked with can handle an order of magnitude fewer new connections per second than they can handle established sessions.
It's often not that big a deal, especially since a SYN-SYN/ACK-ACK happens in milliseconds, but for large systems with many customers new sessions can turn into a significant overhead.
Answer: The amount- or type- of traffic matters a lot less than the code associated with actually allocating memory and the associated tracking of state information.  If you want to get a very rough sense of what this implies take a look at the amount of code in the Linux kernel associated with TCP vs that associated with UDP or ICMP.  An incredibly rough comparison shows TCP requiring something like 10x the number of lines of code found in UDP.
In IP networking the amount of state maintenance required is one of the most important determinants of scalability.  For TCP endpoints this is expressed not just in SYN/ACK but also in ongoing maintenance of sliding windows, sequence numbers, buffer management and QoS actions, etc.  Check out the complexity of the FSM for tcp and consider the inherent lack of same in UDP...


Files Don't Appear on Desktop?

Question: When I place a file in the Desktop folder it dosen't appear on my screens desktop?
Answer: There is not a desktop folder in elementary OS, you can't put icons or files in the desktop, all the icons go to the dock bar and the files to your home folder
Comment: Just an FYI, once a question has been marked as a duplicate you don't generally want to be posting answers there. If this is needed, it should go on the original question.

Files Don't Appear on Desktop?


Fetching data from APRS-IS.net

Question: I would like to fetch the data transmitted by a specific radio station from APRS-IS.net servers. I've read the documentation on their site and it is not clear how you would do it, if you are fetching the data instead of transmitting it. It is mentioned to use a callsign and password, but I'm not sure where to get them from.
Comment: Hello Daniela, and welcome to ham.stackexchange.com! The callsign would be the amateur radio callsign assigned to you by the FCC (I'm assuming you are in the USA?). It sounds like you don't have a callsign yet (mine is W0BTU). I am not familiar with APRS, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I will come along here and help you.
Comment: Thank you Mike. From another forum, I was told use the callsign `N0CALL' and a passcode of -1.
Comment: Okay ... was the callsign N**0**CALL (zero), or N**O**CALL (capital letter O)? Perhaps that is the problem?
Answer: I am using firenet.aprs2.net and euro.aprs2.net for APRS-IS data.
If you need to fetch packets you have to connect to a server on a specific port.
Usually port 14580 is the one to use. Once a connection is established you are
supposed to authorize yourself using your callsign and password. Password is
a hash algorithm based on your callsign.
Here is an example of how to request packets from a APRS-IS server:
<code>user {your_callsign} pass {password_hash} vers {your_software_name} filter r/{latitude}/{longitude}/{range}\n
</code>
for example: your GPS location is 50.000N by 20.000E and you want to request packets within 200km range, use the following packet filter:
<code>... filter /r/50.000/20.000/200
</code>
Please bear in mind that you need to add LF ("\n") char to the end of your request.
If you need more details please contact me via my website http://www.so6agj.pl
73

Fetching data from APRS-IS.net


How did Bucky get the rank of Sergeant?

Question: In The First Avenger, how did newly enlisted James Bucky Barnes get the rank of Sergeant? That's 5 ranks into service.
Answer: Sgt. James "Bucky" Barnes hadn't just enlisted...he'd been in the army some time before the events in Captain America: The First Avenger
During Bucky's visit to Steve he confirms that he's received orders to ship overseas.

Rogers: You get your orders?
Barnes: The 107th. Sergeant James Barnes,shipping out for England first thing tomorrow.

This indicates at the very least that he has completed basic training.
As for how he made Sergeant, we have no information. Basic training would have taken about six weeks so it's possible he was deployed once before and received a battlefield promotion...or that he received promotions during extended training by demonstrating leadership skills.
Unfortunately, we just don't know....yet.
Regarding his enlistment.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier indicates that he enlisted in 1941 immediately after Pearl Harbour.
Comment: I think the answer has been extended enough to be *proof*.
Comment: They explicitly say he just got his orders,just assigned to 107th, last night in NY, etc. Your answer adds no proof that he joined earlier.
Comment: So where was Bucky before? When did he enlist? What tour, base, why was he back in Brooklyn instead of being overseas?
Comment: The question is specifically about Bucky. If you don't have the answer, don't post...
Comment: @cde for all the story about bucky they might need to create one movie on Bucky. Anyways I hope they make for Black Widow first
Answer: As shown in Captain America: First Vengeance Part 2, the canon prequel digital comics for "Captain America: The First Avenger", Bucky and Steve attempted to enlist in 1941, year or so before the events of the movie. Steve was 4F'd, Bucky was not.

Back in 1941, Rogers and Barnes are at a painting class when a man comes in and tells them that they are at war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Barnes agrees to train Rogers to get him ready to enlist. After his training they both go to enlist where Barnes is enlisted but Rogers is told he his unfit for service. He tells Bucky that he is going to get a "second opinion".

Bucky later trained in Camp McCoy, Wisconsin, with the 107th Infantry Regiment. The 107th being the New York Army National Guard, based out of NYC. It was possible to be promoted to (Buck) Sergeant during training, only 3 promotions instead of 4 back in WW2.

How did Bucky get the rank of Sergeant?