Correct way to ask questions about claims involving the supernatural or the metaphysical?

Question: I'm really struggling to get a question re-opened (it was open for a while but I changed the title a little bit, @Oddthinking didn't like the change and closed the question as off-topic, then I reverted back the title to how it was before but now no admin wants to re-open it). The main reason why they don't want to re-open the question now is because the question is about a metaphysical claim, which would make it non-falsifiable, and according to @Avery that's off-topic. However, there are several questions already on this site involving metaphysical claims, such as this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this one. So what's wrong with my question? What is the correct way to ask a question when the claim involves or is related to something metaphysical somehow?
Comment: Just for clarity, your question was closed by `Daniel R Hicks, Avery, Oddthinking♦` Only Oddthinking is a moderator, noted by the ♦. The other two are regular users with the "vote to close" privilege. It normally takes 5 regular users to vote to close, but a moderator vote is unilateral and closes the question with or without other votes being made.
Comment: As previously noted, this question is [cross-posted at psych.SE](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/25631/7001), and now finally has an accepted answer there, so the question should stay closed here.
Answer: The problem with questions like this is that the underlying claim is not falsifiable. The most we can do is posit a mundane explanation.
For instance, suppose someone says "I prayed for rain, and the following day it rained. I claim that the rain was caused by God in answer to my prayer". We can of course point out that rain is not unusual, that rain was forecast for that day, and that rain is readily explainable by physical phenomena. However none of this addresses the actual claim. In fact any physical mechanism that caused the rain could be incorporated into the original claim by asserting that this was simply how God made it happen, including events from before the prayer because God (being Omniscient) would know that the prayer was going to be made and therefore arranged for it to be answered.
If a claim is made that only supernatural explanations will suffice then the claim can be refuted by identifying mundane explanations. However in religious cases this is often not made explicitly. Looking through Christian websites on the shaking and fainting that prompted the original question, they do not so much claim supernatural causes as assume it. The main question which seems to divide them is whether the supernatural entities causing this are good or evil.
The problem is particularly acute in this case because the most likely explanations are psychological, particularly "mass hysteria" (widespread fraud is also possible, but unlikely). However this leads us into anecdote and analogy rather than actual science. Historical cases of mass hysteria often have a strong social contagion element, but its hard to see how to go further. Experiments to induce mass hysteria would be unethical and animal models are not possible. Without this it is hard to describe mass hysteria as a scientific hypothesis: short of mind-reading machines it is as unfalsifiable as the supernatural hypothesis.
Looking at the questions you list as precedents:

"Chi energy" to withstand an electric drill: this is a physical phenomenon not a mental one.

Is Chi an energy flowing through the body?: This should have been closed as off-topic anyway, as it fails to state a clear claim. The only answer doesn't really deal with the question as asked, although it does discuss the lack of clarity.

Is there any explanation for a near-death experience?: This is the closest to your question; it is about a supernatural explanation posited for mental states, and in fact good answers were posted. So it is sometimes possible to answer questions about supernatural explanations for mental states.

The remaining questions you cite are about physical evidence for ghosts. As they deal with physical evidence they are unambiguously on-topic.
The first version of this post proposed banning all questions about supernatural explanations for mental states, but the NDE question above is in that category and got good answers.
I confess I keep oscillating on this. On one hand this question looks unanswerable, but that seems to be more about our ignorance of the psychology of mass hysteria than anything else. I don't want us to be closing questions merely because they ask questions that science hasn't answered yet. It seems the best answer to the original question is "It looks like the kind of thing often called 'mass hysteria', but this is not something scientists have been able to study in depth".
Comment: @SpiritRealmInvestigator If the claim is a physical phenomenon with no mundane explanation, such as the electric drill resistance, then we can investigate the physics. However from a purely physical POV this shaking is well within human capability. That leaves us looking at the mind of the person doing it. Yes, mental states are in theory amenable to physical explanation, but in practice today even our best MRI machines can't read minds and even if they could this phenomenon doesn't happen in them.
Comment: Thanks for the thorough answer. With respect to the ghost questions and the Chi energy question including the electric drill, you mention that the difference is that the phenomenon being metaphysically explained is of physical nature instead of mental. I disagree with this objection. In the case of my question the body shaking and trembling is clearly a physical phenomenon. Actually, strictly speaking from a materialist point of view everything in the universe is fundamental particles and the laws of Physics acting upon them, so why the exception with the human body and nervous system?
Answer: This question has turned into a dog's breakfast, and I think we are at a point where we should pretty much delete most of the content and comments and start again.

There is now a whole lot of "meta-discussion" in the question now. Let's get rid of all of it.
There are plenty of examples of people shaking. We don't need any more of that. No-one is in any doubt that, in some religious services, people shake.
You know what's missing? Someone making a testable, widely-believed claim!

running miracle crusades is not the claim.
having a ministry about signs, wonders and miracles is not the claim.
having a personal encounter with the Holy Spirit on a bus is not the claim.
"the anointing over her is very strong" is not the claim.

To my eyes, it appears that shaking is a socially acceptable way of expressing that you are feeling euphoric. That they ascribe the euphoria to supernatural forces rather than the situation they are in is irrelevant. (Let me try an analogy: If I see a great performance in a theatre, I feel moved to stand up and applaud. Did the performance somehow force me and my fellow patrons to stand-up? No, but that is the socially acceptable way of expressing strong approval.) This is consistent with other church-goers expressing glossolalia or holy laughter.
So find some claims that say "I/they couldn't stop shaking. I/they feel God forcing them to shake." to bring the question on-topic.

now no admin wants to re-open it

Ha, give us a chance. You just edited it a few hours ago.

The main reason why they don't want to re-open the question now is because the question is about a metaphysical claim, which would make it non-falsifiable, and according to @Avery that's off-topic.

Uh, that's not my reason at all.
Although, as I have explained, there is no way the question can be answered here is with "It is a supernatural phenomena." Science can't reach that conclusion.
So, if it is supernatural, the question will remain unanswered.

You should be aware that there are many such phenomena, expressed in different ways in different cultures, which appears to make the explanation that Jesus is responsible less plausible, but it doesn't offer a replacement hypothesis.
I am very wary of empty 'explanations' like "mass hysteria" which give the phenomenon a name, but don't seem to make testable predictions. (I remain open-minded: if someone can show me that it is a theory that makes predictions, I will change my opinion.)
Comment: Thanks for taking the time to write a thorough answer. I can include several quotes from testimonies of people experiencing the phenomenon first-hand. I'll do it right now.
Comment: @Oddthinking See also my answer to the cross-post on Psychology.SE here, https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel where I do make some testable predictions based on the "mass hysteria" hypothesis. They're a bit soft, but better than nothing.
Comment: @Oddthinking I would like to place a +50 reputation bounty on my question. I already placed a bounty on the [cross-post](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel) at Psychology.SE and got a pretty good answer at the last minute. I would like to do the same here. At the moment of writing this I have 49 points, and my question is locked. I would like to make a deal. Would you be willing to unlock the question, grant me one extra point, I place the bounty, and after 7 days you can lock it again?
Answer: It's the subject matter, not the manner, that makes it off topic. Questions about the supernatural are not appropriate.
I don't think "unfalsifiable" is the best term to describe this claim. A better term is "not even wrong". There's simply no coherent claim being made here. "Supernatural" is just a weasel word people use to explain why they aren't giving an explanation. "Why does Kalam's cosmological argument not mean that God needs a cause?" "God is supernatural, so He doesn't need a cause." If I claim that the shaking is caused by an invisible dragon, that's an unfalsifiable claim. If I claim that the shaking has a flabooble cause, and I have nothing but waffle to explain what "flabooble" even means, that's Not Even Wrong.
The first link you present is a mixture of several different questions, such as "is this person faking it?" and "is this person using chi?". The former is a legitimate question, while the second is Not Even Wrong. That question should be clarified and narrowed, but it is salvageable. Your question needs a lot of work before it's out of Now Even Wrong territory, let alone out of Unfalsifiable territory. You may be wanting to avoid tying your question to a particular religious dogma, but a claim that isn't embedded in a wider framework is meaningless. If you were to ask "Is this shaking due to a being who took human form two thousand years ago?" that would at least get you out of Not Even Wrong into Unfalsifiable.
Comment: I guess you can make the claim falsifiable by tweaking it a little bit: "is a supernatural cause the **only possible** explanation for **at least one case** of body shaking and trembling in religious settings?". Then you can falsify this claim by providing a natural explanation for all cases of shaking and trembling, because that would prove that the supernatural is **unnecessary**. For example, if I ask "is the supernatural the only possible explanation for the origin of sand in beaches?", you can falsify that by explaining how sand can emerge naturally by the erosion of rocks.
Comment: Btw, if you know a natural explanation for the phenomenon but don't feel comfortable posting an answer at skeptics.SE, maybe try answering at psychology.SE either [here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel) or [here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25760/neurotheology-neuroscience-of-religion-looking-for-publications-addressing-th)
Answer: I would like to correct my knee-jerk reaction to one the examples you gave.

Is Shaolin monk Hu Qiong using "Chi energy" to withstand an electric drill?

I initially claimed that this was an untestable claim, but the other answers here have shown me that I was wrong. This claim involves a physical phenomenon. It has not received any valid answer, but it lends itself to one of three explanations:

"Chi energy" is a physical phenomenon that can be measured.
"Chi energy" is one way of thinking about the body's muscular system, which can produce measurable physical effects through contemplation.
The video is a fraud, hoax, trick, etc.

I would argue that all 3 explanations provide potential for a potential objective answer. (The question itself provides an array of possible explanations which I simplify here.)
At some point in the far future a physical, mechanical definition of "chi energy" might emerge, while explanation #3 is always plausible for extreme videos like this. Explanation #2 may sound like woo-woo talk but there is a parallel case study: the famous 2002 study of Tibetan meditators who were able to regulate their body heat through conscious meditation, verified with a control in 2013. This is clearly the result of some kind of conscious activity, regardless of any energies claimed to be involved.
This trio of possible explanations can also be used for other targets of scientific skepticism, like ESP.
So, let's apply this to your question. Here is one of the claims you gave.

In the video a lady testifies about her experience of body shaking and trembling allegedly as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit acting upon her.

"Holy Spirit" is not regarded as an obscure physical phenomenon like "chi energy" which is produced by bodily action. The "Holy Spirit" is supposed to be an essentially otherworldly agent who intervenes in this world at will.
This rules out explanation #1, because we are not describing a physical phenomenon, and for the other two explanations things become a bit sordid. To claim that the "Holy Spirit" is produced by our mental activities is the famous God-denying reversal of the 19th century Hegelians (especially Feuerbach), which is a non-answer because God could easily choose to produce such mental phenomena. Meanwhile, even if we add "mass hysteria" alongside fraud/hoax/trick as possible alternative explanations, we do not get to a rejection either, since we cannot ascertain for ourselves whether mass hysteria, fraud, etc. might not be the will of God.
Basically, I think the phrase "Holy Spirit" claims a different kind of agency than "chi energy" which makes your question unscientific. There might be a different claim you could make that would create a scientifically answerable question, but I don't think "is this supernatural" is such a claim.
Comment: I think the key difference between Chi and Holy Spirit questions is control: The key claims for Chi are all about the subject having conscious control of things we wouldn't normally expect to control; we don't need to know the mechanism of that control to design tests of whether they have it. The Holy Spirit, though, is explicitly an *external* force, and the claims are generally of subjects *not* having control of things they normally would have; that's much trickier to test, because we need to somehow distinguish conscious choice, unconscious choice, and forced action.
Comment: "if you are willing to redefine Chi energy in order to derive testable hypotheses" We shouldn't be willing to redefine the terms in the claim to make them testable. That leads to tackling strawmen. The Shaolin monk question will never get a good answer, because "chi energy" is not defined in a way that can be tested.
Comment: I think you are forgetting a 4th possible explanation: that [Chi energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi) is an energy from the soul or spirit of a person, a vital force (assuming [mind-body dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism) is true), which would be a metaphysical claim comparable to the claims involving the "Holy Spirit". With this interpretation the Chi energy is as otherworldy as the Holy Spirit. Now, if we can show through evidence that the concept of Chi energy is an attempt to describe a physical phenomenon, why can't we do the same with the Holy Spirit?
Comment: I'm talking here about claims that can be scientifically tested, not the explanation that is most philosophically true, the one that appeals best to our soul/intuition, etc. What you're describing isn't a 4th option, it's a metaphysical explanation that is compatible with any of the 3 options for material explanation that I gave.
Comment: What I'm trying to say is that in order to get those three scientifically testable hypotheses you have to redefine the concept of Chi energy. If you use the [original definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi), you have to include the concept of vital force which assumes the existence of a vital realm beyond the physical. That's a metaphysical claim, just like claiming the existence of the Holy Spirit is, if we use its original definition. However, if you are willing to redefine Chi energy in order to derive testable hypotheses, why can't we do the same with the Holy Spirit?
Answer: The "correct way to ask" -
Well, from what I gathered from the question, it seemed to me that the question was being phrased in a way that severely limited possibilities to the following options -

The participants intentionally and willfully faked their reactions.

Supernatural.

If it was a more open-ended question along the lines of "other than faking (if you don't want all the answers to be down that rabbit hole), what are possible explanations" then it wouldn't get as much push-back.
The most obvious and documented explanation, which is excluded by the framing of the question would be hysterical/psycho-somatic reactions, which has been especially documented in history when there is a strong religious factor in the setting.
(Witches, demonic possession in older times, claims of ritualized Satanic-based child abuse of children in school or preschools that was a fad in the US in the early 1990s are some examples of debunked supernatural or spectacular claims where the victims/afflicted weren't necessarily trying to intentionally deceive)
Comment: I don't understand why you say the question wording limits the answers to those two only options. There is a claim made by people, namely "these manifestations are supernaturally caused" and the question is about challenging that claim. In order to challenge that claim, it suffices to show that the phenomenon has scientifically understood natural explanations. So yeah, one option is to show that some people willfully fake it, but another option is to show that perhaps there is a subsystem in the brain that gets activated in certain circumstances, etc. (I don't know, I'm just speculating).
Comment: *"The most obvious and documented explanation, which is excluded by the framing of the question would be hysterical/psycho-somatic reactions, which has been especially documented in history when there is a strong religious factor in the setting."* By all means feel free to post an answer elaborating more on this. Or if you want, post an answer on [psychology.SE](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel)
Comment: "Moreover, even children are experiencing this (like here, here, here, here), very old people (like here, here) and even prison inmates, which makes me doubt they are actors." - which sets up the dichotomy. And quoting them saying they think they are feeling something supernatural also doesn't tell us anything relevant. I may **believe** that aliens are controlling my mind. That's not proof that it is so. The question is not open-ended. You seem to be clearly trying to make a particular case and narrow the possibilities in a way that suits the desired answer you wish to see.
Comment: OK, I think I see now where you are coming from. No, it's not a dichotomy. Actually you have 3 options: 1) people are intentionally faking it, 2) people are sincere but they are misinterpreting a completely natural phenomenon, and 3) people are sincere AND the phenomenon is supernatural. When I refer to examples of children, elderly and prison inmates experiencing this stuff, it is to show that option 1 cannot be the explanation for ALL cases (certainly there are people who fake it, but it is not reasonable to claim that ALL fake it). However, we still have options 2 and 3.
Comment: @SpiritRealmInvestigator - I get that, but the way the question is framed makes it seem like the goal is not an open-ended inquiry. By pointing out the people making claims and saying "they seem sincere" and then challenging, it seems, how it can NOT be supernatural, given their sincerity, it seems limiting. I'm suggesting why it would seem different than how you perceived it. I'm suggesting a more "open" perspective in framing as a way to get it re-opened, possibly. I'm not trying to argue the validity of the premise, itself, actually.
Comment: I don't know. I guess Skeptics.SE is just not the best fit for challenging supernatural claims. Feel free to post an answer on [Pyschology.SE](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel) instead, I have a bounty on that question right now, so if you post a good answer I can award you the bounty. You mentioned there is a documented explanation for these manifestations. It would be great if you expand more on that on Psychology.SE.
Comment: @SpiritRealmInvestigator - You're right about that, I think. The modus operandi for a claim on that stack would be something where there is going to be hard data or a falsifiable hypothesis, whereas the supernatural claim is often more about something where there is a gap in those areas.


Any reason to buy stock lens for Sony Alpha if I already have good Minolta Maxxum lenses?

Question: I am a novice photographer looking to get into DSLR photography.  I have an old Maxxum 5 and a couple lenses for it: a 75-300 zoom and a 28-80 zoom.  After reading this question, it is clear that these lenses will work with a Sony a57 (let me know if I'm confused on that point).  My question is, is there any reason to buy the a57 with a new lens, or are my existing lenses just fine?  It looks like I can purchase the Sony with an 18-55 lens for about $100 more than just the body.  Other than the shorter focal length, which I don't care much about at the moment, will this lens perform better than the 28-80 I already have?  It looks like the lens will cost me about $200 separately so if it is worth getting I am better off buying it with the body.  But if it isn't better than my current lenses I'd rather save the $100.
Comment: This isn't a duplicate but might help you a bit: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/790/should-i-buy-a-camera-with-kit-lens-or-body-plus-lens-separately
Comment: Example 18mm/28mm shots added to my answer.
Comment: @RussellMcMahon the example shots really hammer home the difference.  Thanks.
Comment: jkohlhepp - All taken with various 'Alphas' :-). 5D 7D A200 A700 A77. 18mm is usually either a (lovely) Sony (Tamron) 18-250, or a not so lovely Sigma 18-200. Just maybe a very nice 17-35 Minolta FF.  When you get some lens money to spend a while from now, TRY the Sony 18-270 (or a used Sony 18-250).  Value for money they are amazing. Far better than any prior "superzooms". I have a Tamron 28-300 for Nikon which is terrible by comparison.
Answer: Summary:

The 18-55mm kit lens is better than many kit lenses and is worth buying.
(This is based on an extensive body of information available for both lenses. See below)
While many old Minolta Full Frame lenses are very good optically, and better than typical entry level A-mount Sony lenses, in this case the 18-55mm kit lens is noticeably superior optically to the 28-80 Minolta lens (unless you have the Xi version, which is possible but unlikely. Even the Xi version is not marvellous on sharpness).
The range from 18-28mm which is lacking with your existing lenses will be useful in many "walk-around" situations and not having it makes the lens less useful overall. The extra top down range (55-80mm) is useful but will be less missed than the extra bottom end range.
A superb resouce for Sony & Minolta A-mount lenses suitable for your camera is available at Dyxum's lens page - which provides details and invaluable consistently scored user reviews of A-mount lenses both ancient and modern,

The A57 - which got a DP Review Gold rating is a superb photo making system (as opposed to just being a camera) and you will be astounded at what it can achieve once you get used to it. The seamlessly integrated live view made possible by the Pellicle mirror, what-you-see-is-what-you-get EVF and constant phase type focusing transforms the overall taking experience compared to that from a "normal" DSLR. Note that more than for some cameras, the A57's RAW output is far better than JPEG*.
Overall, you will not regret buying the 18-55 lens in the circumstances.
 The biggest thing you will miss on the lenses you have is the 18-28 range of the DX lens. I've occasionally used a 28-xxxmm lens on an APSC Minolta & Sony body camera and for day to day use would definitely miss the 18-28 = 28-42mm equivalent segment.
The Sony 18-55 kit lens is better than may be expected with 78 user reviews giving it a 3.99/5 average rating. In this case it is superior to 3 of the 4 Minolta lenses in the 28-80 range so is worth having. Sharpness is good for an entry level lens, with "build" being what you'd expect in a modern plastic entry level lens.
While it is a matter of personal preference, when I am doing casual candid 'street photography, for general scenes I most usually use 18mm focal length on an APSC camera. The change from 18mm to 28mm gives you 18/28 = 64% of the width and angle of view and only 40% of the area. The difference is very substantial. 18mm on an APSC (equivalent to 27mm on a 35mm full frame) is on the upper end of what is classically accepted as "wide angle". 28mm APSC = 42mm FF is definitely not.

The following applies more genrally. In many cases my advice would be that the old Minolta lenses are good value for money and superior to kit alternatives. This casse is a welcome exception.
Quality wise the older Full Frame Minolta lenses are liable to be of equal to better quality than entry level "kit" Sony DX lenses.
You can find user reviews and discussion for all things Minolta, including much information  re lenses at www.dyxum.com (aka Dynax + Maxum). DYXUM homme page here
Lens page here - accessed by tastefully small and easily overlooked top right menu entry on home page.
Use selector guide at right to narrow range.
 You will see a rating out of 5 per lens based on user reviews.
Anything over 4 overall is usally well worth having - but each review has 5 components (sharpness, color, build, distortion, flare control) and you may well care about some more than others. (eg build is of low import when assessing absolute prformance - but important if the lens is to see much use and long life).
There are 4 x 28-80mm lenses listed, with ratings of 3.44, 3.5, 4.22, 3.62
 The 3.5 is a plastic looking kit lens and may well be what you have. For it and the 3.62 lens all ratings are under 4 and while they would be "OK" they are not what you'd want to use long term. The next 2 by score are not vastly better and the 4.22 is worth keeping forever. Minolta AF 28-80 xi F4-5.6 2618-110 although better lenses exist that cover this range.
On the review page note where it says "total: 22 reviews". The "reviews" is a live link - click it and you get to read the 22 reviews.

JPEG/RAW - While it is generally the case that RAW produces superior results to JPEG "out of camera" it is especially true for the A57. The A57 has a wider "gap" between JPEG & RAW than some others and if you want to get the most detail from its reasonably good 16 Mp sensor then RAW helps you do so.

Do I "need" an 18mm lens when I have a 28mm one?
An 18mm lens on an APSC camera with a 1.5 crop factor is the equivalent of a full frame 35mm camera with a 1.5 x 18 = 27mm lens. A 28mm lens on an APSC camera is the equivalenbt of a 42mm FF lens. The difference is extremely significant.
The 4 photos below were taken "while wandering around" using an APSC camera with 18mm fical length setting. The rectangles marked on each show the area would be covered if a 28mm lens had been used from the sam position. While "foot zoom" will allow you to obtain approximately the same result with a 28mm lens, circumstances and sheer physical constraints often make this completely impractical. Also, a 28mm lens shot covering the same area will change the perspective - for better or worse.
The top left shot has the camera held at arms length. MUCH longer arms would be needed to use a 28mm lens in this manner.
Top right and bottom left street scenes were probably unobtainable in the circumstances with a 28mm lens.
For the brick tunnel shot I could have moved back. But perspective would have changed - in this case that would just be "different" - neither good nor bad. I also walked back from here and took photos with more of the brickwork showing using the 18mm setting.
--> A number of photos all taken at 18mm can be found here.
Some have the 28mm effective area marked - in others it can be readily envisaged.  Most of these are street scenes where a 28mm shot would have been limiting or impossible.
 The bride photo was taken from the tallest chair I could find. A 28mm lens could not have achieved it in the circumstances. [It was the end of a long day. She was very tired. She did not really want to have this photo taken and could not see why I wanted to take it. She absolutely adores it :-). ].[More flash diffusion need].
Comment: This is a lot of great info.  I think you have convinced me to shell out the extra $100 for the kit lens.
Answer: If you don't think you'll go wider than the full-frame equivalent of 42mm, save the $100.
I'd say you've got two things to consider:

Field of view
Size and weight

First, field of view:
The sensor on an a57 is an APS-C size, which is smaller than the full 135 format frame that your Maxxum 5 would have used. So your lenses on the a57 will be effectively 'longer' than they were on the Maxxum. This is a dark rabbit hole to get sucked in to. For more, see What is the difference between focal length and crop factor? and What is "angle of view" in photography?.
With the 1.5x crop factor, your 28–80mm will have a field of view like a 42-120mm on film, and your 75–300mm will be effectively a 112.5-450mm lens. On the a57, the 18–55mm kit lens will have a near-identical field of view (27.5–82.5mm) as your 28–80mm did on film.
So if you liked shooting wider than 42mm (on film), you won't have that wider field of view available with your current lenses on the digital camera.
As for size and weight… well, typically I'd say that lenses for the smaller APS-C sensor can be smaller and lighter than lenses with the same field of view on larger formats, but according to Dyxum the 18-55 is actually slightly heavier than your 28-80. So I guess there's no weight savings to be had.
So, yeah, if you didn't ever use the 28–42mm range of your 28–80 zoom, save the $100.
Comment: I did not realize that the crop factor will change the "effective focal length".  It sounds like it may be worth it to get the 18-55 for the $100 as I definitely do use the wider focal length of my current 28-80.  Thanks for the info.
Comment: unexplainedBacn - the 28mm/ 42mm limitation is rather severe if its his only shorter focal length lens initially -  see by cropping examples.


What does put up mean?

Question: What does put up mean?

A lady was in so much pain so someone "put up a medication pump in her".

What does put up mean here?

Next, a nurse came up to me and said "I'm just going to put this IV drip up."

What does put up mean there?
Thanks
Comment: then how do we word it? put a drip up on the patient or put a drip up in the patient? put a syringe pump up on the patient or in the patient?
Comment: What do you think it means? Think of the context, think of what the nurse is doing. You need to demonstrate that you have made a fair attempt to understand the meaning.
Answer: If you install a bag of intravenous meds, you put it higher than the patient (up) so gravity keeps it dripping down. More generally, put up means install. A pump may not need gravity, so the general meaning of install fits. Note also that a nurse came up to you, another example of verb phrases with up.
This is medical jargon, the shorthand that staff use to dispatch quick and clear information to each other, not general-purpose everyday English. The intravenous line is placed in the patient, and drugs-electrolytes-sugar are put up in the bag of fluids that drip down. Once people use the term put up, they continue to call it up even if a pump is below the patient and pumps up.
Same with putting up peaches for the winter -- Maybe filled jars were originally stored up on high shelves, but now putting up means canning (in glass jars) for long term storage
Answer: Usually the phrase "Put up" inclines towards toleration. "Put up" for toleration can be used as "if he troubles you to a point of frustration, why do you put up with him?" It means here why do you tolerate his nonsense and cause yourself harm.
The sentence you are referring to "A lady was in so much pain so someone "put up a medication pump in her"." sounds like slang or used in a colloquial manner. Here "put up in her" also sounds harsh like it was shoved into her. It also means that the lady was having problem breathing (she was probably an asthmatic and someone helped her with a breathing pump.) - its all about perspective
The second sentence "a nurse came up to me and said I'm just going to put this IV drip up" means hanging the IV drip unto the stand. Again colloquial.
Comment: I suggest that *put up a medication pump in her* is simply mistaken and rather unlikely to come from a native speaker, even of some far-flung outpost of the English tongue.

I find it hard to see how *I'm just going to put this IV drip up* is colloquial. To me, it sounds a perfect, literal description of a simple and obvious mechanical process.

there are other meanings to *put up* and they shouldn't be relevant here…
Comment: I must have misheard him as he was Scottish and he talked really fast. But back from where I come from, we would usually say 'I  started the patient on a drip'. But for the word put up... I only find it natural to say 'I put the fluid up just an hour ago'. This thread though would lead me to my next question. What would happen if I were to include a subject in my sentence. 'I put the fluid up (in/on/for) the patient just an hour ago. Are all of the options unusual? Thanks
Answer: @Rafael M, Due to less reputation points I can add comments so here's the answer to your question:
"I put the fluid up "for" the patient just an hour ago" sounds good.
For "on" we can say "I put the patient on fluid just an hour ago.
For "in" I am unable to make a sensible sentence.
@Robbie Goodwin, the reason this sentence "I'm just going to put this IV drip up" sounded colloquial is because, when it comes to IV, it is supposed to be hung. I am not saying colloquial way is wrong, but  we do not know if the question asked here, is going to be used in a colloquial manner or not. Hence to make the person asking understand better, I said it is colloquial.

What does put up mean?


Copyright issues with directory website

Question: I am trying to create a directory website that would be for tattoo artists in a particular niche of tattoo design. I want to initially list different artists for free to gain momentum and maybe eventually charge artists to place ads on the site. So my question is this: in initially listing different artists for free, what is appropriate and what is not in terms of showcasing their content? For example can I take pictures from their website since I am actually advertising their website in order to direct people to it?
Answer: If you link to their website and use images located on their site there should be no issue.  By "images on their site" I mean don't upload them to your server, hotlink to their images, assuming they aren't blocking hotlinks.
But why don't you contact them and explain what you are doing and ask for permission.  It is pretty unusual for a business to say no to someone wanting to promote their services.

Copyright issues with directory website


Second monitor doesn't show max supported resolution

Question: I am using ElementaryOS on an Acer E5 Laptop with Intel Haswell Graphics and an Nvidia GT840M. The screen of that laptop is 1920x1080 and works fine. At work I connect a second monitor. That one support a resolution of up to 2560x1440. But in the settings it only shows a maximum of 1920x1200. I tried looking in the nvidia x server settings, but there it only shows I have one screen.
Does anyone have an idea what I could do to get the native resolution?
Comment: I tried it in windows too and there it also only shows a max resolution of 1920x1200, but on the win7 pc my colleague uses it shows the native resolution. May it be a problem with my graphics driver(s) ?
Comment: have you found a solution?
Comment: No, it seems like it was a problem with my graphics cards, or at least that's what I assume.
Answer: Just some questions (since I do not run multimonitor)
Have you tried making the second monitor the primary display?
If so ... does it show the higher resolutions?
Have you tried JUST the second monitor?
Does it then show the higher resolutions?
Comment: I haven't tried setting it as the primary display. I will try both your suggestions on friday, when I am back at the office.
Comment: Nothing of that helped.

I also tried adding a new mode with xrandr --newmode, but that always gives me
    `xrandr: Configure crtc 0 failed`


Advice on undersaddle piezo replacement for A/E Fishman Presys preamp

Question: After clearing a lot of doubts about my A/E dead guitar preamp and doing some testing Ive reached the conclusion that the undersaddle piezo is probably faulty. Looking for a replacement part Ive seen three types. A basic type seem like built in or encased in metal. A rigid (but not mettalic) type, like the Fishman acoustic matrix, usually bright coloured. And finally a braided cord type. This last one is the one I have and my question is if I need the same type or it doesnt harm to change. I would like one with the most sensitivity possible.
Answer: From your previous question (Sudden death of Fishman preamp on acoustic guitar), I'd guess that you don't KNOW if it's faulty, you're just assuming so. I still maintain that it's the church sound engineer who has the problem.
You will be looking for an under-saddle pickup - the hole will already have been drilled, for the previous pickup. Make sure you get the correct width of pickup. If your guitar has volume controls for the pickup, you need to purchase the same pickup, or at least make sure that the connections are the same. Sensitivity isn't an issue - when correctly installed, any piezo pickup will be very sensitive, and correct gain staging on the guitar and mixing console will provide the right level of output.
Before doing a search for pickups, search for a local guitar tech. A decent Fishman pickup is expensive, and if the problem is somewhere else, the cost of the guitar tech will be cheaper than replacing parts that you're not really sure about.
Comment: Ja ja, yes I do know sound techs are complicated fellows, especially when you tell them how to do their job. I know that is an issue and Im working on it separatedly. But the fact that the onboard tuner didnt work and after ajusting (pressing) the saddle it did seems to me that there is something going on with the piezo. The width advice is great since the hole (actually it has holes in both ends, dont know why) is actually narrow and I dont think could allow for a rigid angled piezo. Im still baffled by the cost of the oficial retailer of the pickups, its a piece of circuit with some wires.


Is Satan evil or just doing his job?

Question: Is Satan inherently evil, or is he simply fulfilling the role that God gave him to attempt to lead people astray so that they can have the accomplishment of overcoming him? Or is he something else altogether?
Comment: Don't be confused Islamic concept of "Shaitaan" with the concepts of "Devil"
Answer: God does not depends on Satan to test human. We all are equipped with rebellious nafs (ego, lower self). Satan, like many of us, slipped but unlike many of us, he refused to seek forgiveness, instead asked for respite and challenged God to mislead His creation. God gave him respite (now.. why? to test human? not necessarily) and said anyone who seek forgiveness He will forgive them.
Satan is God's creation. He was close to God but he slipped. He is very interesting character but nevertheless Quran declares him to be an open enemy to human. I do not think Muslims have any confusion or second opinion about Satan. Every year they stone him during Haj pilgrimage and he was eternally scorned for his deeds.
Comment: *"God does not depends on Satan to test human"* good point
Answer: Satan is a Jinn (A type of creation like Human beings and angels) hence it is as insignificant as any other Human being in the eyes of Allah. There are human beings on this earth which are more powerful then others  and have money, influence and power yet they can be either be believers(Mumineen) in Islam or disbelievers similar is the case of Satan(Iblis) who is a Jinn, he was one of the Jinns who was initially a  believer Muslim, but his disobedience and arrogance made him evil and he became the cause of more evil:

Behold! We said to the Angels, 'Bow down to
  Adam': they bowed down except Iblis.  He was One of the Jinns, and he
  broke the Command of his Lord....(The Noble Quran, 18:50)
"It is We Who Created you and gave you shape; then We bade the Angels
  bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; he refused to be
  of those who bow down.  (Allah) said: 'What prevented thee from bowing
  down when I commanded thee?  He said: 'I am better than he: Thou didst
  create me from fire, and him from clay.  (Allah) said: 'Get thee down
  from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou
  art of the meanest (of creatures).  He said: 'Give me respite till the
  day they are raised up.  (Allah) said: 'Be thou amongst those who have
  respite.'  He said: 'Because thou hast thrown me out of the Way, lo! I
  will lie in wait for them on thy Straight Way: Then will I assault
  them from before them and behind them, from their right and their
  left: Nor wilt Thou find, in most of them, gratitude (of Thy
  mercies).'  (Allah) said: 'Get out from this, disgraced and expelled.
  If any of them follow thee - Hell will I fill with you all.  (The
  Noble Quran, 11-18)"

So to answer you question Satan was not evil initially , but the circumstances in which he was tested made him a disbeliever which led to his own downfall and a source of all evil. More over Satan can be also viewed as a  synonym concept of evil and can be both among men and jinns:

Surah (Chapter) 114.
  1. Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind,
  2. The King (or Ruler) of Mankind,
  3. The Allah (for judge) of Mankind,-
  4. From the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper),-
  5. (The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind,-
  6. Among Jinns and among men.

Even prophet Adam A.S disobeyed Allah but he did repent from the sins and the repentance was accepted, Satan on the other hand did not repent rather became more jealous of Adam and set out to misguide the progeny of Adam . Even among human beings those who reject faith of Islam are friends of Satan and evil, but they can cease to be satanic if they accept the God's message of Islam:

4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who
  reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the
  friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
Answer: I should point out that there is likely to be a confusion based on the usage of the word "Satan" for anyone not already familiar with the Islamic doctrine. "Satan" refers to two overlapping groups.
As the question uses "he" and "him," I assume that the assumption is that the word "Satan" always refers to the same being across the Torah, Bible, and Qur'an. This is incorrect. In the Qur'an, this being is referred to as Iblis. Like the other answers stated, he was instructed to bow down to humans, and refused. Subsequently, due to his anger at being rejected by Allah, he has chosen to lead people astray from Allah's desire for them. Iblis' actions are his own, caused by his pain at his just punishment.
The word "Satan" in Islam also refers to a class of jinn called the shaitan. These beings are actively malicious, because they have never heard the Qur'an, which would teach them to be good. They can be repelled by readings from the Qur'an. These do not convert them to good, suggesting they understand the effects the Recitation would have on them, and seek to depart when they hear it. Iblis is the leader of the shaitan, and is counted as one, leading to some confusion.
Answer: We believe that Shaytan/Satan to be mankind's greatest enemy.  Shaytaan has been granted life until the last day, and his goal is to mislead mankind, those who hold strong faith and do good we believe Shyataan will never get them.

And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and
  they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed
  from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his
  descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you?
  Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.

Surat Al Kahf Ayah 50
Lastly I will like to end mentioning the 62 verse of Surat Al Isra'

[Iblees] said, "Do You see this one whom You have honored above me? If
  You delay me until the Day of Resurrection, I will surely destroy his
  descendants, except for a few."

I ask Allah for forgiveness of my shortcomings and mistake, and nay He guide us all.
Answer:
Is Satan inherently evil?

Let's define evil...

Evil: immoral, cruel, or very unpleasant (Cambridge Dictionary)

or

Evil: something that is very bad and harmful (Cambridge Dictionary)

I think the 2nd definition is good in regards to Mr. Satan. Not, pretty much the 1st one. It is man who fulfills the 1st definition under the influence of Mr. Satan possessing the 2nd definition. So, it depends on how you define evil.
Let's define inherent...

inherent: existing as a natural or basic part of something (Cambridge Dictionary)

So, in his basic form, Mr. Satan (a general name given to the descendants of Iblis i.e. the main Villain at the time of Adam (pbuh)) belongs to the class of Jinn, who by their very basic nature are given free will. Hence, by misusing the free will, Mr. Iblis and his descendants chose to be evil i.e. by deceiving people, and God let that be because Mr. Iblis requested so.

is he simply fulfilling the role that God gave him to attempt to lead people astray so that they can have the accomplishment of overcoming him?

Yes.
Since, the word of God took effect, all God is telling us is.... to stay away from the bad guy.
May the creator guide us all.

Is Satan evil or just doing his job?


Show a checklist when capturing a task

Question: I have a checklist to do when adding new tasks for myself in org-mode. I would like to see it when capturing a task via org-capture, but I don't want it to be among the text I am adding because I would have to erase it every time. How can I do this?
Answer: Your question is quite vague.
For an instance you do not say anything about the location of your checklist.
I assume here that your checklist is stored in a separate file and you just want to view the contents of this file in a separate window as long as org-capture is running.
If you put the following lisp code into your [[][init file]] and re-start emacs the command org-capture displays the checklist given by the customization option org-checklist-file when the property list of the TODO entry is shown.
The checklist disappears when you hit C-c C-c.
(require 'subr-x) ;; for `when-let'
(defcustom org-checklist-file "~/checklist.org"
  "Checklist for adding org agenda items."
  :type 'file
  :group 'org-agenda)

(defvar org-capture-checklist-window nil
  "Where `org-capture-with-checklist' saves the created window.
So that it can be deleted in `org-capture-after-finalize-hook'.")

(defun org-capture-checklist-window ()
  "Just do `org-capture' but show the contents of `org-checklist-file' therewhile."
  (interactive "P")
  (when-let ((buf (find-file-noselect org-checklist-file))
         (window (display-buffer buf nil)))
    (set-window-dedicated-p window t)))

(defun org-capture-delete-checklist-window ()
  "Delete window from `org-capture-checklist-window' if it is alive."
  (when (window-live-p org-capture-checklist-window)
    (delete-window org-capture-checklist-window)))

(add-hook 'org-capture-mode-hook #'org-capture-checklist-window)
(add-hook 'org-capture-after-finalize-hook #'org-capture-delete-checklist-window)

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

(defcustom org-checklist-file "~/checklist.org"
  "Checklist for adding org agenda items."
  :type 'file
  :group 'org-agenda)

(defun org-capture-with-checklist (&rest _)
  "Like `org-capture' but also displays the checklist from `org-checklist-file'
when the property drawer is shown."
  (cl-assert (file-readable-p org-checklist-file)
         "Org checklist file \"%s\" not readable." org-checklist-file)
  (let (window)
    (unwind-protect
    (let ((buffer (find-file-noselect org-checklist-file)))
      (when (buffer-live-p buffer)
        (setq window (display-buffer buffer)))
      (call-interactively #'org-capture))
      (when (window-live-p window)
    (delete-window window)))
    ))

Show a checklist when capturing a task


Where are primary results (or effects) described?

Question: I was away for a week and in some ways now return to the site as a new user. I see some implications that the primaries were over. Yet it looks like the 1,2,3 buttons are active for all candidates. Did a post with an announcement get buried in the pile?
Comment: if no one else does and you still care I'll let you know what happened at the end of the primary after the general election, I wouldn't want to influence  anyone's vote now.
Comment: @PeterTurner I don't think anything "happened" that isn't still public record. I've updated my answer with some clarifications, but the short version is that svidgen got eliminated. The voting activity of the primaries is still publicly available during the election, although this access will be reduced to only  those that made it to the election stage after the election is over.
Comment: Constructive criticism on how to make this a better question appreciated.
Answer: Primaries are over. Now we are in the actual election voting phase.
First, let's clarify the purpose of the primaries. It seems a common point of confusion that voting in the primaries doesn't actually elect anybody. Primaries in general election terminology are for determining who the final candidates will be in the election. In the US, primaries determine who the running candidate is for a party. The actual election determines which candidate wins, but you only get to choose from the top voted members of each party as determined by the primaries.
In SE parlance, the primaries serve to whittle down the elections to the top ten candidates so that the final stage has no more than 10 names on the ballot.
In the case of this C.SE's first election, we had 11 candidates step up during the nomination phase, so we had to go to primaries to get it down to 10 before the final round of official voting. It was a lot of hoopla to eliminate just one nomination from the ballot, but that's the way math works.
The "outcome" of our primaries as it were is that one candidate was eliminated, in this case svidgen. The remaining ten have moved on to the election phase.
With primaries over, now the ballot is finalized. It remains to  cast an official vote. I say vote singular because each person has a voting power of 1, but their vote is split between 3 preference slots in such a way as to be most advantageous in electing their their first preference and so on. There are basically zero disadvantages to not choosing three preferences as the full weight of your vote will be used for the first choice if it will get them elected and only leftover unneeded/partial votes get transferred to your next preferences.
This is the voting that counts. Vote now to elect the future moderators of this site!


How late is too late to describe a character?

Question: I haven't supplied much description of my main character, mainly because it didn't come up naturally. Her parents are described, so you can get a basic idea, fair skin, light eyes—but I never list any of her physical traits directly. But later, about six chapters in, another character mentions that she has red hair. Will this disrupt the mental image that readers have already formed of her? Should I mention it earlier, or not at all?
Comment: You might find the bad example mentioned in my answer of 06-10-2021 to be interesting.
Answer: Do it early, if at all. People usually form their impressions of a character based on the first time they see them enter the story, and if you don't describe them there the image won't stick in their mind.

But later, about six chapters in, another character mentions that she has red hair. Will this disrupt the mental image that readers have already formed of her? Should I mention it earlier, or not at all?

Yes, you must mention it earlier than this, because this is the point where it become plot-relevant. Much like a mystery, all the pertinent information must be established beforehand to make a plot development seem natural rather than shoehorned in. I.e., if the character has red hair, but for the first six chapters the reader assumed she had black hair, then readers will be completely lost when you mention how the character's red hair is important.
This is even worse for physical traits than mental ones, as physical traits are something that is immediately obvious upon first notice. The only time someone would not make note of these things is if it was in a context that no one would notice: say everyone in the room including the viewpoint character had red hair.
A good example for this was a case I saw where a friend who was reading the Animorphs books accidentally started with one that did not describe the Hork-Bajir, and based on the book's mention of blades accidentally thought the Andalites were the Hork-Bajir. When they later picked up the Hork-Bajir Chronicles and saw they were anthropomorphic Stegosauruses they were very confused.
Answer: For many people, the story plays out like a movie in their head as they read. If you don't "cast" a face into the role quickly, they'll have already filled it with their own imagination. Within a few sentences of introducing a new character, stories tend to describe the important characteristics you'd notice if you saw them on screen to avoid pulling the rug out from under the reader by revealing relevant details too late.
There are some stories where the appearance of the main characters is withheld from the reader until much later. This is done with a purpose: the reader makes an assumption about the appearance of the characters.  Maybe they have red hair, maybe not and then — boom — they're actually aliens! (This in particular is an allusion to Asimov, but there are dozens of stories like that, some about bigger twists and others about more minor details like yours.) This only works because there's a shock factor involved.
Answer: As well as describing the red hair early as the other answers suggest I'd also advise describing it explicitly. Don't feel obligated to add in all your character's other physical traits as well, if the red hair is the only trait that is relevant make it the only one you describe. Otherwise the reader may not pick up on it.
For example I was reading a story where early on the main character was described both physically and non-physically in successive paragraphs.
The physical description was a paragraph describing everything from their hair length to the kind of jeans they were wearing and it never came up. No other character every reacted to any aspect of it and it was never considered by the main character at all.
The non-physical description however consisted of just saying the main character was very confident while everyone else thought they were arrogant, and everyone in the story responded to that in some way. So that was the description which stuck with me and that's what I based my mental image of the character on and for me that included the character having a big beard.
This meant that half way through the story when the character put on a false beard to infiltrate some crime organisation it really threw me. I went back and checked and in the middle of the physical description it did say they were clean shaven I'd just completely missed it as it was buried amongst all the other details and had never come up since.
In my case it didn't matter as the false beard wasn't important, the fact they were disguised was, and in fact after saying it had been put on the beard itself never came up again. But in your story if the red hair is important make it the focus when you describe it so the reader definitely picks up on it.
Answer: Here is the worst example I could think of where a writer omitted mentioning a detail of their protagonist's appearance until that detail became important to the story, thus making that detail seem like a deus ex machina.
There is a famous science fiction story "Deadline", by Cleve Cartmill, Astounding Science Fiction, March 1944, about wartime espionage and a project to build a fission nuclear bomb.  Since this was during World War Two when the USA and other countries had top secret projects to build fission nuclear bombs, government agents investigated to see if there was a leak from the Manhattan Project, but were convinced that it was based on publically available information.
Here is a link to an article about the investigation of the story:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/radiance/1984-berger.pdf[1]
The story is set on the planet Cathor, so the characters are extraterrestrials who aren't human but seem more or less similar to humans in the story.  Many readers might assume, for lack of descripion, that the Cathorians probably look exactly like Earth humans. The protagonist, Ybor Sebrof, is captured by the enemy.  And near the end of the story, the protagonist, while a prisoner, has an enemy pointing a gun at him.

The doctor chuckled. "Why, you are telling the truth."
Dr. Sitruc relaxed, and Ybor moved.  He whippped his short, prehensile tail around the barrel of Dr. Sitruc's gun, yanked the wapon down at the same time his fist cracked the scientist's chin. His free hand yanked the gun out of Dr. Sitruc's hand.

And that was the first mention of Ybor's tail - and presumably the tails of all the other natives of Cathor - in the story, despite how "handy" Ybor's tail turns out to be.
And if a writer doesn't want their story to be ridculed as much as "Deadline" was for Ybor's magically appearing tail, they should mention all the details of their protagonist's appearance which are important early in the story, before those details become important.
Answer: Actually, a character usually gets by with very little physical description. If it's not necessary for the plot, I wouldn't mention the red hair at all, so that you don't confuse the reader unnecessarily and ruin his own imagination.
Comment: In that case, I would mention it earlier. There is nothing wrong with such details occurring later. But in my opinion, one should make it as comfortable as possible for the reader, and as tedious as necessary, to tell her the story in the best way.
Comment: I do agree with you, which is why I haven't placed much description otherwise, but the piece of dialogue serves another purpose within the story. I don't know whether I should go to lengths to avoid stating her hair color?


What are the azimuths of the planets' orbits?

Question: I am creating a virtual solar system model and I want it to be as realistic as possible (e.g. orbits are ellipses, not circles, and orbits are oriented correctly, not all coplanar).  In order for me to do this, I need to know the eccentricity of the orbit, the perihelion, the semi-major-axis, inclination and azimuth.  I have all of this information, except for the azimuth of the orbit, which is the angle from the sun to the aphelion.  Are there any reliable sources with this information?
Comment: As noted in the wikipedia article, one needs seven parameters to specify an orbit, the epoch time plus a set of six values that represent the orbit at that point in time. The canonical set is $a$, $e$, $i$, $\Omega$, $\omega$, $M_0$, and $t_0$ (semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, right ascension of ascending node, argument of perigee, mean anomaly, and epoch time). Vinnie Caprarola, you only list five parameters in your question.
Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
Comment: Can you please give a better definition of azimuthal angle in this case? Even better, would be if you would use the right terminology, according to the page linked by the OP above.
Comment: Are you creating a static model or a dynamic model where the planets actually move over time? If dynamic, you'll want to use SPICE files for uber-accuracy. Are you modeling planetary moons as well?
Answer: As someone commented, you are actually short a term for fully defining the orbit.  The "azimuth" as you describe is commonly defined as a "longitude of perihelion", and you're forgetting the orientation of the inclination, commonly defined as "longitude of the ascending node." (Both of these values are included in the first link in the previous posted answer)
For a more detailed look at the math which uses the defining values, JPL made a whitepaper which goes into the math, and also allows you to account for changes in the orbital terms.  (Most of the math you're probably looking for is at the end of the document, beginning about section 8.10, on page 25)
ftp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/eph/planets/ioms/ExplSupplChap8.pdf
Answer: The Keplerian elements for the planets provides all of the information needed to define the orbit and where the planet is currently along it.
Approximate elements are available from JPL and can be found here: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt
If you don't want to do the math, you can just ask JPL Horizons to do it for you and calculate an ephemeris telling you which direction each planet is in right now:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi


What's the difference between DevOps and Automation?

Question: I see that whenever someone does DevOps, it's mostly about automating things like deployment etc.
But where does automation end and DevOps begin?
Comment: Hi @punkpanther if this or any answer has solved your question please consider [accepting it](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5234/179419) by clicking the check-mark. This indicates to the wider community that you've found a solution and gives some reputation to both the answerer and yourself. There is no obligation to do this.  If you don't feel that your question has been answered please do feel free to engage with the authors in the comments.
Comment: Maybe the better question would be where does DevOps end and automation begin? Not everything done with DevOps is about automation; a large part of it, yes, but not all... One could say DevOps is everything but automation - it's the sysadmin cultrue, the common architecture standards, the common publishing standards (say GitHub) of a particular technological field... Where does the automation in that particular field starts is a good question by itself, I think...
Answer: A big part of DevOps is making it possible to release very often. That comes with automated build, automated testing, etc. You can say that to achieve its goals, DevOps need to use automation to be efficient.
Here's how DevOps and automation are related. DevOps is not just automation, there's more to it. Conversely, automation is not exclusively used by "DevOps people". A lot of automation was taking place in IT before DevOps came around.

Please don't consider to above diagram to represent all that is DevOps, or all this is automation. It is to help the reader picture how the two concepts are related.
Comment: Exactly what I had said on the subject :)
Comment: Why isn't "tickets workflow" in DevOps?
Answer: Automation is a key attribute of DevOps, but it's not the full story.  The question is kind-of like "What's the difference between time-boxing and Scrum?".
You'll hear DevOps called a 'culture', a 'movement', a 'methodology', and all kinds of things that won't box it in well enough for you to understand it, even though those descriptions are accurate.  In a nutshell, DevOps is about the confluence of Agile methodologies, automation, and virtualization that enables a new feedback loop in the management/control/steering of a software project.
With aggressive automation, things that use to take a long time and be subject to human error now happen quickly and without incident.  As a result, we tend to do them more often.  A primary example of this is a 'deploy into production'.  We used to save large batches of work and deploy them off-hours just in case 'something went wrong'.  But now we can deploy changes several times a day, in a way that the chances of 'something going wrong' is dramatically reduced, and in a way that the impact of something going wrong is much smaller when it does occur.
Once we have this repeatable process in place, we begin to see it as a 'pipeline'.  Requirements go in, code deployed into production comes out.  We automate everything along this pipeline - tests, documentation, merges, deploys, and more tests, and so on...  Because people focus on the automation, they don't see the 'pipeline mentality' that drove it.  This is the management methodology - the attention paid on the pipeline - that makes DevOps more than Automation.
Once we have that automation in place, the feedback loops kick in.  We start to measure things like cycle time so we can figure out things we had previous tried to guess with estimates.  Things about the architecture that make automation/continuous delivery hard tend to be replaced with alternative architectural patterns that make automation/continuous delivery easier (several great examples of this are documented in the book 'Evolutionary Databases'.  'Green/Blue Deployments' are another).
Notice I was able to provide this description without talking about Jenkins, Check, Puppet, Ansible, Vagrant, AWS, or any of the other tooling that supports it.  This is what we mean by the larger level buzzwords like 'methodology'.  In the end, any set of tools can be replaced... What we're left with is the core management principles enabled by automation and the focus on the pipeline.
Comment: @Tensibai I have to disagree somewhat- you don't automate a process that doesn't execute frequently.  DevOps without Agile is like automating the building of a multi-million dollar supercar.
Comment: I am sorry, but this sounds like an Agile manifesto more than a devops culture information to my feelings. Agile/iterative/short cycle methodology even if often used are not mandatory for a devops organization. You can have devops teams on a waterfall project and  you can automate silo based delivery, as such I feel this answers address partially the question.
Comment: This answer is incredibly verbose and it is hard to distill the differences, or pros/cons that relate to the OP Q.
Comment: @Dave you're missing the point, I must have been unclear, what I mean is that a devops culture is about breaking silo teams, automation or short cycle are unrelated even if usual , I didn't saw this important point in your answer
Answer: DevOps is really a cultural shift - it's intended to be about breaking down the traditional barriers between operations and development (and really also with QA and the rest of the business!). The idea is that rather than having departmental 'silos' you can work directly with other teams to get things done quicker and more efficiently.
It's all about removing constraints and streamlining processes. Automation comes into this heavily because having repeatable processes helps remove constraints. For example: if someone from ops has to do a manual release process to get code out to an environment, there's a couple of things that can get in the way - one is that there has to be someone in ops free to do the deploy, and two, there is less confidence in the release process because manual work is error-prone.
Answer: DevOps includes automation but that's only part of it.  DevOps is a cultural change to break down the silos between the different parts of the organization to provide a complete value stream.  Providing a culture where business, development, quality assurance, infrastructure, security, ops, etc all work together to provide value to who ever is the end user.  DevOps is not a tool, you can't buy it, you have to change your culture.
Automation is a key part of DevOps in that it allows the speed of delivery with quality.  Automation for the deployment process is one of the areas many people focus on first as it is one of the best ways to gain value quickly and provides a high return on investment through not only reducing the time for the deployment but also standardizing the process and removing errors.
Answer: DevOps movement consists of four major areas abbreviated as CAMS:

Culture
Automation
Measurement
Sharing

Here is the original defining post from 2010.
In each area there are some tools, processes and practices that are generally accepted, although the subject is not well defined for Best Practices, there are in most cases some Good Practices to follow.
Automation by itself is a bit wider subject, but in context of DevOps it is just a subset of what is being covered. Take a note that we lead with culture, although many DevOps practitioners new to the field often overlook it at their own peril and skip directly to automation.
Answer: I would like to add my 2 cents:
1) Automation:
     Something that we are nowadays having to move towards. It has become more of a necessity wherein the preferred way would be to automate pieces, if not the entire process. This approach gives the users (developers) flexibility to use a fixed step along with being able to customize as needed.
     The advantage in this approach is that we can automate the parts that we want to while the individual process can be tied together by the developer. The more granularized the automation steps, the better control they have.
     Also, there are many tools for automation in spaces like robotic automation, SOP automation (for servicing industry), report automation (like Splunk), etc.
2) DevOps:
     Given the state of delivery quality and timeliness that is being expected out of the current world, there is a necessity to extend automation of the software delivery process. To enable this and provide value to the customer in the fastest way possible, DevOps does extensively rely on automation tools.
     The advantage in this approach is that, the individual steps can be automated to bring about consistency across enterprise while the overall orchestration can be modified to suit the process needed by that project.
     The individual automation tools (in a way) like Chef for deployment, Docker via Dockerfile, Maven for build, etc. can be tied together probably via Jenkins to provide the required solution while at the same time bringing down the time needed for implementation or usage.
Hope this helps to add any value to the thought process that you may already have.

Edit: Forgot to add that I had talked about the Process and Tools - 2 of the 3 aspects in DevOps. As mentioned by the others, the 3rd and equally important aspect is People. One of the major differences I would assume between this and automation would be that people are more prone to absorb automation more frequently than they would resist DevOps. I feel that this is due to the nature of DevOps itself, in that automation is usually associated with making things easier for them, while they feel that DevOps is changing the way that they are comfortable with.
Answer: Automation and DevOps are unrelated.  DevOps is more like combined engineering where the Developers of a site or service are all the Operators of that site or service.  Why is this novel?  In my experience the first thing the Ops team did when anything more exciting than a network blip happened was to call the Dev team.  Why did they do that?  Because all the Ops team did was monitor and keep a list of dev phone numbers to call.
Notice I've said nothing about automation.
Automation is about repeating success.  If I do steps a,b and c and process X always works, then steps a, b and c are good candidates for automation.  Then I can use the time for what used to be a manual process to do things that make me more money.  Automation is successful when it's simple.  Deploying new releases, running integration tests, torquing a nut on a bolt, backing up data, balancing credits vs. debits, etc. are all great candidates for automation because the steps are repeated whether by a person or a robot.
Note: What is new is that Developers are also the operators. There is not another group. Cooperation in my case was rare. If there was nothing in the Troubleshooting Guide (aka TSG) then you were guaranteed a phone call. In my experience Ops was the first call in case of backhoe. Problems between services were out of their wheelhouse.
Comment: Automation and DevOps are "unrelated"?  Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.  Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment, Automated Testing, and more are integral to the technology component of DevOps.  Without automation, DevOps is *only* culture.  Culture is important, to be sure, but it's only one leg of the three-leg DevOps stool (Culture, Process, Technology)
Comment: But onething, the cooperation was always there right? Communication between dev and ops, is it something new? what's devops bringing new?
Comment: What is new is that Developers are also the operators.  There is not another group.  Cooperation in my case was rare.  If there was nothing in the Troubleshooting Guide (aka TSG) then you were guaranteed a phone call.  In my experience Ops was the first call in case of backhoe.  Problems between services were out of their wheelhouse.
Comment: @NoRefundsNoReturns Devs are operaters. In the sense that there is no need for a devop team?
Comment: Feel free to disagree.  We had tons of automation when we both a "developer" team and and "operations" teams.  That's why I say they are unrelated.  Automation could care less about your org structure.  If your developers are also the operators it is highly likely automation will occur because most developers are lazy and will tend to automate repetitive tasks.  I'm confused by your response @pinkpanther
Comment: another anonymous downvote.  Please feel free to disagree but have the balls to step up and say why if you do.  Haters are just gonna hate.
Comment: the upvotes and answers here indicate that folks think that automation is a key part of the picture. you focus on support. I think that merging design-build-support into one team to optimise the value chain is what devops is about. removing silos is part of that but also getting it right first time and cycling faster is important. merging dev and ops teams isn't doing devops its just breaking down one particular silo. devops is about optimising the whole end to end delivery which is automation, culture and tooling.
Comment: I stand by my position that these subjects are unrelated based on my original answer.  Please feel free to continue the downvotes.  If you really want to get in the game though, offer an `answer` and open `your reputation` up to public scrutiny.

As I said originally, we had automation long before we had Dev / Ops.


Can humans survive just by eating hairs and nails?

Question: Can humans survive by eating only nails and hairs of their own?
As they grow they consume their own hair and nails. Hair includes even body hair. What is the maximum number days a human can survive on this?
Answer: No.
(If they're their hair and nails, this is forbidden by the Third Law of Thermodynamics - you can't get the energy to live and grow hair from the energy you put earlier in those same hair).
This is a plot point in Serge Brussolo's Sommeil de sang, 1982 (Blood Sleep, but I don't know if it was ever translated into English), where the Autonomous people survive on their own hair, and baldness is a wasting disease (I must confess I almost put the book down then and there).
What about surviving on someone else's hair and nails? It can't work (also: eeew), because hair is not digestible by humans; to be digestible we would need specialized bacteria similar to those that help in digesting cellulose, which has some similarities to keratin (both are polymers, the former made of D-glucose units, the latter of protein units). While such bacteria do exist (they're called dermatophytes and infect humans, feeding on hair and skin squamae), they're not optimized for survival in the gut. Dust mites also are able to digest the softer squamous keratin by drenching it in peptidase enzymes, but you can't do that in a normal human gut because at the required concentrations the enzymes would digest the gut itself first. Also, digestive protease production in humans isn't all that great (one of the reasons humans aren't full carnivores, but rather omnivores; and even obligate carnivores like cats will rather regurgitate hairballs than digest them).
The caloric value of keratin is also way below that of cellulose, because the digestion process requires the undoing of much stabler disulphide bridges. Even setting up the digestion process is expensive as it requires dedicated enzymes and/or strong acids (cellulose can be hydrolyzed much more easily).
(Hair and nails supply different kinds of keratin; the latter is more easily digested, at least in rats).
By the same token, perversely, keratin synthesis is more expensive than cellulose synthesis. Crudely, L-cystein supplies around 70% of the caloric output of D-glucose, and that without the waste management costs (D-glucose burns to easily disposed of CO2 and water, while L-cysteine produces, among other things, ureic acid and nasty sulfur compounds. You really don't want to stay downwind of a keratin-digesting, human-sized organism).
I haven't been able to come across hard numbers, but I feel that a still very optimistic estimate is a ratio of perhaps 1 to 20 - that is: to be able to produce one gram of keratin, you need to efficiently consume around 20 grams of keratin (we knew from thermodynamics that we could never reach a 1:1 ratio anyway).
So:

ordinary human, survive on own hair: no (digestion limits).
gengineered human, survive on own hair: no (thermodynamic limits).
gengineered human, survive on someone else's hair: remotely possible, if enough people are harvested.

The number of "enough people" is likely to be high, though, because standard caloric intake is around 2000 kCal per diem, and this translates to a wildly optimistic 500 grams of hair (that is the absolute minimum, without expenses and interests. I'm treating hair as if it was prime steak). On eBay - you don't want to know - they say that a full head of 50-cm hair weighs 250 grams. So you need one meter of hair per day.
Various sources on the Internet claim both that

According to the U.S Center for Disease Control, hair grows at an average of 0.50 inches (1.25cm) per month which means the average person grows 6 inches (0.15 m) per year.

and that you can grow your hair 1 cm per week with several magical remedies.
Even allowing 0.5 m per annum instead of 0.15, every day you would need two years' worth of hair growth, that is 730 man-days.
Riding the wave of optimism, we thus end up with a people ratio of 1:730 - you need 730 people, surviving on something else, to allow one gene-tailored person to survive on their hair.
(Until oligoelements and vitamin deficiencies do him in, that is).

We can turn up the gross factor to eleven by noticing that oily hair contain more easily digested and caloric substances (Wikipedia: "triglycerides (~41%), wax esters (~26%), squalene (~12%), and free fatty acids (~16%)"), with a final  calorific power about five times that of hair.
Answer: No, they cannot survive on such a diet.  Nails and hair are made of keratin.  Keratin is very much not digestible:

Keratin is highly resistant to digestive acids if it is ingested (Trichophagia). Because of this, cats (which groom themselves with their tongues) regularly ingest hair which will eventually result in the gradual formation of a hairball that is occasionally vomited when it becomes too big. Rapunzel syndrome is an extremely rare but potentially fatal intestinal condition in humans that is caused by Tricophagia.

Even if it was digestible, it is very low in usable energy, which is why almost nothing eats it except a few fungi, such as the fungus behind Athlete's Foot.
How long would they survive eating only their own nail and hair?  Well, nail growth and hair growth account for an insignificant fraction of the energy expenditure of a human being.  Accordingly, you should see negligible increase in survival times over not eating anything at all.  How long you can survive as such depends on a multitude of factors, but somewhere between 3 weeks and 8 weeks seems to be the limit.  However, if you are unusually obese, you can last much longer, such as one man who weighed 456 pounds before he went 382 days without eating any solid or liquid food (he did get supplements to ensure he had sufficient nutrients, just not any calories).
Answer: Your question asks how much longer they'd live, not if they could live forever
I think people are misreading your question.  Can someone survive forever?  No, and the laws of thermodynamics are the reason.  But, how long would it extend life?  Obviously recycling buys you something... or does it?
The problem is that nutrition isn't just a function of mass
Hair and nails are made of keratin, a difficult to digest protein, and pretty much nothing else.  Because it's difficult to digest, simply cutting off your hair and ripping off your nails and eating them will provide so few calories that you likely burned more trying to eat them, speeding your demise.
However, researchers have found if you properly powder and prepare keratin,1 it becomes a mediocre source of protein.
Does this buy you much?  Most calories come from carbohydrates, not proteins.  Therefore, it's not surprising to discover commercially available keratin is listed as having no calories per 250mg serving. [1, 2, 3]  Granted, a full head of hair may weigh a couple of kilograms2 (the world record holder for length is 5+ meters, but it doesn't look very full...), but even if we're generous and suggest 1 calorie per gram, 2Kg of hair is only worth 2,000 calories, your single day allowance.
And there are other problems

Your hair and nails are, well, dirty.  We don't even want to think about what bacteria and nasty germs are living in your hair and under your nails, much less the hair spray and conditioner you use and the finger- and toenail polish you might be wearing.  Perhaps you took the time to scape off the polish, wash your hair thoroughly, and wash your hands and feet before yanking those nails off.  Total calories used to avoid illness: gazillions.
You pulled all 20 nails off.  Ouch.  There's a better than average chance of infection.
If you don't powder the hair, there's a better than average chance it can ball up in your intestinal tract and block it.  Maybe you don't die any faster, but you'll wish you did.

Conclusion
If you took the time to cut all your hair and rip off all 20 nails, then grind them into a very fine powder (preferably without causing heating, per the linked article), you would maximize the value of the keratin to your body.  But you probably expended far more nutritional calories than you could possibly receive from them.
Net effect: you die one day faster, but you won't feel as hungry

1 Have you ever had to do anything after breaking a big chunk of nail off?  It hurts.  It hurts a lot.  Hitting it with a feather duster hurts even more.  And our earstwhile survivalist just ripped all 20 off to the root.  And the next thing you're going to do is pick up a rock and hit it against another rock to powder everything.  And you're not going to slip and hit a finger or toe even once.  Not even once.
2 Unless you're like Max Klinger from M*A*S*H, the odds are your body hair won't add substantially to your supply of Keratin.  It's worth noting that there's a huge variation in hair weight.  I've seen women with so much hair I wondered how they could hold their hair up.  I've also seen Patrick Stewart.  It's a good thing hair's worthless or we'd have to figure out the average weight of hair on a person's head.
Comment: I'd rather die than eat 2kg of hair.
Answer:
The energy you take in as food is used to produce hair and nails, and also run your body.  The fraction going towards making hair and nails is small.  So on the fly, the nutrition in hair and nails is not enough to sustain you.  If it were, nothing would starve to death because it would just eat its own hair.

But the OP does not mandate it must be on the fly.  Suppose I stored a large quantity of my hair and nails over time, while eating meals at Arbys.  When it came time to live on hair and nails I would have a large supply, enough to meet my nutritional needs.

Keratin is indigestible with my god-given digestion equipment.  But the OP does not limit me.  It is possible to hydrolyze keratin into component amino acids. Amino acids can be converted to glucose and burned for energy and so this would be a route one could take to meet energy and protein requirements on just hair and nails.

One would of course suffer from nutritional deficiencies (e.g. scurvy, pellagra) in the intermediate and certainly long term.
Comment: A terrifying approach to getting around the limits Kingledion and I put forth!
Answer: Thermodynamics says no
In addition to CortAmmon's answer on the merits of keratin, there is the simple problem of energy conversion.
That is to say, how do they grow hair and nails in the first place? When you are a baby, you don't have much of either. You need some external source of energy to even begin growing extra hair and nails.
Answer: As pointed out by everyone, of course not indefinitely (because thermodynamics), but this is not what is being currently asked, rather "the maximum number of days a human can survive by eating hairs and finernails".
If you don't have a decent storage, from the low nutritional value of hair+nails, a very good approximation to the answer would be "the same maximum number of days as without eating hair nor fingernails". There is also a consensus here.
What if you have a unusually large storage, as suggested by Willk? Eww, sure, but a good suggestion nonetheless.
I'd be not making the eww-factor any better with my answer, but let me point out that neither hair nor nails do have to be clean. I'm going for an abundant reservoir of dirty hair.
One can get some nutitional value from eating dirt (even more so if it contains compost!). In the same line, but for conventionally-dirty hair: dandruff, sebaceous secretions (yay fat!), different kinds of fungi (yay proteins!), non-microscopic bugs and their eggs (lice, ticks). The more complex the dirtiness of the hair, the better its potential nutritional value. Nails of course can also be a good source of fungi and various dirt.
Still, how much fat+muscle does one have on oneself? Typically, a lot, compared with all but the most extreme reservoirs of dirty, oily hair. It's really hard to compete with that. One's own typical methabolic mechanisms, where you slowly&internally eat yourself, will typically overwhelm the kinds of eww-tricks we can come up with. So my best attempt at a numeric answer is the same maximum number of days as without eating hair nor fingernails, plus maybe 1.
Answer: Yes you could survive atleast a extra few hours if you were starving to death in a survival crisis. This may help save your life if your rescuers just needed that extra couple of hours to find you. For example your lost in the desert
Comment: That's surviving on fingernails not hair. If you were to try to survive on hair you would have to be able to boil your hair in your own blood to break it down before you are it so you could digest it. This process would turn it into protein that the body could use. I wouldn't suggest this to be helpful though because loosing blood will make you even weaker. So it might be a win loose situation