As American as the Apple Pie?

Question: After doing my own research I found that the apple pie was invented in England in the 1300's. With that being the case, why do we often hear the saying "It's as American as the apple pie"? Because I had always thought the saying came from America inventing a very tasty desert, but apparently America didn't even invent it. Why do Americans claim it? Is there something I am missing?
Comment: I got the impression it was because it's was one of America's favorite dishes and is found almost everywhere throughout America - virtually a constant of American life.
Comment: Popcorn would be more adequate, looking at its history and pre-history.
Comment: Oh my god, another British revisionist. Next we'll be *flogging* dead horses.
Answer: Just because a nation claims a cultural icon doesn't mean they necessarily invented it; the Statue of Liberty for example is made by the French, depicts a Roman goddess, and is mostly known for its links to immigration.
Apple pie is, as you've noted, very old and well known in Europe centuries before USA existed. Apples were however very important to early European settlers, being mostly used for cider (see Johnny Appleseed). Thereafter apple pies became popular but it wasn't closely associated with the United States yet.
Things started to change around the turn of the 20th century; in an editorial in The New York Times (May 3, 1902):

Pie is the American synonym of prosperity and its varying contents the calendar of the changing seasons. Pie is the food of the heroic. No pie-eating people can ever be permanently vanquished. ...
In our own glad and fortunate country the seasons are known by their respective dominant pies—for each there is an appropriate pie, with apple pie for all the year 'round.

While the article is about pies in general, and names mince, custard, lemon, rhubarb, berry, peach and pumpkin pies, apple pie is named first and noted as the only one available "all the year 'round". This was made possible by preservation techniques developed by Pennsylvania Dutch pioneers.
It was only until WWII that "as American as apple pie" really took off, where apparently US soldiers would use the stock answer "mom and apple pie" when asked why they were enlisting, and/or what they missed about home. I couldn't find a reference for this though. It's not clear why apple pies would be such an important food, especially compared to foods like hot dogs which are closely associated with baseball, except that apple pies would have been baked by mothers and associated with motherhood. However, by 1950 the song The Fiery Bear contains these lyrics:

We love our baseball and apple pie
We love our county fair
We'll keep Old Glory waving high
There's no place here for a bear

Suggesting that by this stage, apple pies were just as patriotically American as baseball, county fairs and the flag.
And in 1975, Chevrolet ran a song with the lyrics "Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet", indicating that by then, apple pies were well and truly an American icon.
Comment: `made by the French, depicts a Roman goddess` also made of Russian copper and German cement.
Comment: It was made by the French yes, but it was also given to the U.S. by the French as a gift. The U.S. is the only country with the Statue of Liberty. Which makes sense why it would be an American symbol. Apple pie is virtually in most every country that has apples not just America.
Comment: @trippt02: the original Statue of Liberty is in Paris: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont_de_Grenelle. The one in the US is an expanded version.
Answer: @congusbongus' answer covered pretty much everything that had to be said about the Apple pies. I wanted to contribute another source to answer your question from phrases.org.uk which adds how American settlers would write back to homeland appreciating American Apple pies and how foreign visitors noted Apple pie as one the first culinary specialities. Quoting my reference below:

"America in So Many Words: Words that have Shaped America" by Allen
Metcalf & David K. Barnhart" (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1997) has
a section on the subject --"1697 apple pie."
"Samuel Sewall, distinguished alumnus of Harvard College and citizen
of Boston, went on a picnic expedition to Hog Island on October 1,
1697. There he dined on apple pie. He wrote in his diary, 'Had first Butter, Honey, Curds and cream. For Dinner, very good Rost Lamb,
Turkey, Fowls, Applepy.'

This is the first, but hardly the last, American mention of a dish
whose patriotic symbolism is expressed in a 1984 book by Susan Purdy,
'As Easy as Pie': 'This is IT - what our country and flag are as
American as. Since the earliest colonial days, apple pies have been
enjoyed in America for breakfast, for an entrée, and for dinner.
Colonist wrote home about them and foreign visitors noted apple pie as
one of our first culinary specialties.' We cannot claim to have
invented the apple pie, just to have perfected it." But here's the
surprising part. The expression "as American as apple pie," the
authors say, is not that old. "Apple pie figures in our figurative
language, too, as in the expressions 'simple as pie' (since everyone
supposedly knows how to make apple pie) and, though not an
Americanism, 'apple-pie order' . But it was only in the twentieth
century, apparently in the 1960s, that we began to be 'as American as
apple pie.'"
And of course we remember the notorious H. Rap Brown, whose 15 minutes
of fame flickered in the '60s. His immortal quote was "violence is
American as cherry pie."

Also these are other few websites with other interesting theories on Americanism of Apple pies:
from priceonomics.com

Throughout the 1700s, Pennsylvania Dutch women pioneered methods of preserving apples -- through the peeling, coring, and drying of the fruit -- and made it possible to prepare apple pie at any time of year. In the vein of many things American, settlers then proceeded to declare the apple pie "uniquely American", often failing to acknowledge its roots. For instance, in America's first-known cookbook, American Cookery, published in 1798, multiple recipes for apple pies were included with no indication of their cultural origins.

and from todayifoundout.com there is also an alternate explanation to the phrase and America favouring apples in addition to the above, not quoting it here.
Answer: Apple trees and fruit trees and vines in general do not grow well in England because it is too cold and wet and the soils are unfavorable. While there may be a few fruit trees in England, they are in relatively short supply and fruit and its produce has not (since Roman times) been an important part of the British diet, which is best known for "bangers and mashed", boiled beef, crackers and other similar items. Most apple cultivars in England are not English at all, but are French cultivars which is why they have French names like "pippin" and "ruffet". France has a far superior climate for fruit trees and vines.
Just as one evidence of this go to a wine store and look for the "British" wine section. Then compare that to the French wine section.
As a comment on the superiority of the American climate and soil for fruit trees I could cite Peter Williamson's treatise on the geography of New England (1759):

The fruits of Old England come to great perfection here, particularly
  peaches, which are planted trees; and we have commonly 1200 or 1400
  fine peaches on such a tree at one time; nay, of the fruit of one
  single apple tree in one season, nine barrels of cyder have been made.

When the Americans discovered how well apples grew in America it became the standard practice to plant apple orchards on every plantation due to the marketability of cider, being as good as liquid money. Perry, on the other hand, is not as good tasting here, probably due to dryness and for that reason perry has never been important in America, whereas in England perry and cider were originally equally abundant.
In any case, the practice of growing apples for cider was universal throughout colonial America and this led eventually to the large stock of apple trees which our country still has today and are responsible for the widespread presence and love of apple pie.

I might add that the other answers which claim that apple pie is popular here for 20th-century cultural reasons is completely incorrect. Apple pie is traditional here because of the huge number of apple orchards there are which are a remnant of our colonial past and the dealing in cider at that time.

As American as the Apple Pie?


Puzzler - which spacecraft(s) incorporated real wood structural elements?

Question: Not a trick question, but a real puzzler - which spacecraft or spacecrafts incorporated real wood structural elements?
Comment: I think wood would be an unlikely choice for a spacecraft structural element. See http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/ask-anything-could-you-build-spaceship-out-wood
Comment: Nowadays the crushable landing structures are usually made of aluminium honeycomb rather than balsa wood. This is also used for crash protection in terrestrial vehicles - at one stage I had a brochure from a manufacturer being considered for Schiaparelli, which mainly had pictures of high speed trains on it.
Comment: @AnthonyX while the use is brief (milliseconds), during the contact and deceleration phase the absorber is a mechanical device solidly in contact with the payload and the surface. It is designed to slowly fail in a predictable way, dissipate energy, and to control the distance between the payload and the surface as a function of time for smooth, controlled deceleration. A structural engineer would use structural engineering math and structural engineering software to design and simulate it. Would you prefer that a propulsion engineer or an orbital mechanic do the job? :)
Comment: Is this on topic as an answerable question? As interesting as it is, it seems like a list question.
Comment: Do structural elements of spacecraft's standard *equipment* count? 'cause [TP-82](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82) had wooden stock and grip.
Comment: @AnthonyX I agree, and yet [there is this](http://space.stackexchange.com/a/18862/12102)! The 1960's was quite a creative decade for technology. OK so were much of the 50's and 70's as well.
Comment: Not sure I'd consider balsa wood a structural element in this case - as an impact absorber it would appear to be designed to crush under its true operating load.
Comment: @AnthonyX Note the use of "[crushable landing structure](http://space.stackexchange.com/q/18708/12102)" in the Schiaparelli lander as well.
Comment: @djr I always wondered what they put inside [these things](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ImKm7.jpg).
Comment: Not really an answer, but... Since many polymers and plastic materials come from petroleum, it's a stretch but some of that was wood once. And for that matter, kerosene...
Comment: However, [this answer](http://space.stackexchange.com/a/18862/12102) by @djr does discuss the use of actual wood.
Comment: @corsiKa Do you mean any answer which includes more than one item suddenly renders the question off-topic? **Rangers 3, 4, and 5** is indeed the correct and only answer. If you look at the other answers, they are interesting but not really structural elements. I think the idea of a "list question" is something that is open ended or really long, not simply any question who's answer includes more than one single object. There are literally zillions (I counted them all) of stackoverflow questions to which even one answer contains more than one way to do something.
Comment: @SF. you should quickly delete your comment and ask as a puzzler!
Answer: Rangers 3, 4, and 5 each had a seismometer encased in balsa wood to limit the impact loads.
Comment: It's at JPL, so yes, Pasadena. That street looks pretty much the same today. We still use buildings built when JPL was an Army facility.
Comment: Not just wood but balsa! Because, like the old saying goes: "balsa flies better"
Comment: Is that Pasadena? Somewhere in top-secret New Mexico? The background looks vaguely like billeting.
Comment: @slebetman ah! https://i.stack.imgur.com/y1dZp.png
Comment: is there a JPL historian in the house? [Was the famous SPICE package of programs, utilities and data kernels named after "Melange" found on the planet Arakis?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/49791/12102) I may have called you a "SciFi geek" there indirectly, but I've included a supporting source :-)
Answer: Many Mars landers have used heatshields made of cork powder in phenolic resin, including Viking and Schiaparelli. (ESA uses a material called Norcoat Liège, "liège" being French for cork.)
Comment: Right, like cabinetmakers disparage particleboard as "frozen sawdust."
Comment: Yep, good one! But in that case we can't really call it wood anymore, I'm looking for an application where the wood's natural structural properties are used mechanically.
Comment: I have a recollection of discussing this in the '90s with one of the elder folks who'd been at a research establishment since the 50's and they were telling me about an application where I think oak was used as the base (not the external layer!) of a heatshield because it had low thermal conductivity and was still reasonably structurally stable, high strength and stiffness. If it were man made it would be referred to as an advanced fibre composite (as long as it doesn't get wet!)
Answer: I think that Soyuz launcher uses wooden parts in engine ignition process
(proof link in Russian: https://geektimes.ru/post/273782/)
Comment: No, it is used for ignition process and does not fly to space
Comment: Nice! It is used for structure - it holds something in place. I can't tell from google translate - is it just first stage (at launch) or were they used on upper stages? Wood in space?
Comment: OK only the first stage ignition, where it is easy to access, and not in upper stage engine ignition, that makes sense. Thanks!
Comment: Here's some more wood! https://twitter.com/ClosertoSpace/status/1386403989034471427 I only have this accidentally found tweet, if you can find a supporting source it can be a new answer.
Answer: A wooden Space Shuttle?
Before the Space Shuttle ever flew, a lot of testing had to be done. Among the test items were the OV-101 (Enterprise), STA-099 (later OV-099, Challenger) and the Pathfinder (later OV-098, no STA designation known). The latter was partly built of wood.
OV-101 Enterprise

The Enterprise was built without engines or functional heat shield. Also a lot of other systems were missing. It was intended as a flight test article first, but was planned to be upgraded to full orbiter status after conclusion of testing, becoming the second orbiter after OV-102 Columbia. Design changes during the construction of Columbia forced NASA to reconsider this. After the Challenger disaster, refitting Enterprise was again brought up but ultimately decided against.
STA-099 Challenger

Like the Enterprise, Challenger was first built for testing. It was a full airframe with a mockup crew module and partial heat shielding. It was put to the test for 11 months. After that it was fitted with a functional crew module, parts were reworked and was launched on orbital missions as OV-099.
OV-098 Pathfinder

Space Shuttle Pathfinder (retroactively/honorarily assigned number OV-098) was another full sized orbiter test article, but built out of steel and wood. It was mainly used for testing all shuttle ground facilities: cranes, roadways and other heavy equipment. It completed 6 missions, but zero of those actually went into space. It was later refurbished into a fully equipped model using a test tank (MPTA-ET) and two prototype Advanced Solid Rocket Booster casings.
Comment: I always felt that the Star Trek fans who campaigned to place the name Enterprise on the first shuttle to be rolled out had messed up. They should have campaigned to place the name Enterprise on the first one actually scheduled to carry humans into space. According to show canon, the USS Enterprise was a Constitution class vessel, thus not the class leader, so more fitting that Enterprise actually not be the first shuttle built, rolled out, or even to carry a crew (flight test article).
Comment: Wow! Thank you for pulling all this information together - including the historical photos.
Comment: Wooden test articles are common. I've seen wooden mockups of Buran, for example. They are used for check fits and other tests where structural strength is not important.
Comment: @Hobbes That's right, but most don't get a designation commonly used for spacecraft. The Pathfinder is a bit of an edge case, but I think items like this dserve more recognition.
Comment: Aww... you can't see all the pencils stuck in the bottom of the tank from this picture. (Pathfinder is at the same facility as Space Academy, the slightly-older-kids version of Space Camp. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out how the pencils got there.)
Answer: In the mid 1970's China had a series of reconnaissance satellites called Fanhui Shi Weixing (FSW). These were designed pretty early on. They were recoverable and mostly used for mapping and internal geography of China. They were recoverable because at first they had film cameras like early American spy satellites. These had a heat shield make of white oak. It apparently worked well since there were quite a few, (20 something?) missions.
Later on they tried to evolve them into manned spacecraft. In the west it was believed they had a failure causing the loss of the astronaut, so that program was discontinued. I believe FSW (with improvements) were used again for reconnaissance. Later they got people up in the Shenzhou program.
Comment: Here is one resource http://www.astronautix.com/f/fsw.html
Comment: Wow!!! Great answer, thank you for this contribution! It's not a structural material per se, but it's a notable use of wood nonetheless. I've found multiple references to this right off, but  can you add a link to your answer just for future readers? Thanks!!
Comment: I've asked a [follow-up question](http://space.stackexchange.com/q/19804/12102).
Answer: WISA Woodsat is made of regular plywood; dried in a thermal chamber but otherwise the same as you'd buy in a hardware store:

WISA Woodsat is a 10x10x10 cm 'CubeSat' – a type of nanosatellite built up from standardised boxes – but with surface panels made from plywood. Woodsat's only non-wooden external parts are corner aluminium rails used for its deployment into space plus a metal selfie stick. [...]

"The base material for plywood is birch, and we're using basically just the same as you'd find in a hardware store or to make furniture," explains Woodsat chief engineer and Arctic Astronatics co-founder Samuli Nyman.

"The main difference is that ordinary plywood is too humid for space uses, so we place our wood in a thermal vacuum chamber to dry it out. Then we also perform atomic layer deposition, adding a very thin aluminium oxide layer – typically used to encapsulate electronics. This should minimise any unwanted vapours from the wood, known as 'outgassing' in the space field, while also protecting against the erosive effects of atomic oxygen. We'll also be testing other varnishes and lacquers on some sections of the wood."

From this press release
Comment: I hope you don't mind, I've added two of their videos.
Comment: [ALD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_layer_deposition) *on plywood!*
Answer: The Apollo SLA had thin cork panels for insulating the LM.
The roof of the LM looks to me to be perforated chipboard, like the back of an old tv, but i've no references to back that up :)
Answer: Balsa wood was discussed for the thermal insulation of cryonic LH2 tanks of the Saturn rocket. But there was not enough balsa wood available, therefore glas fiber reinforced polyurethane foam was used.
Comment: @uhoh: Not only bearings but also gears were made from the self lubricating Lignum Vitae. Even very precise pendulum clocks by the famous John Harrison. But are you sure about "ball bearings"?
Comment: Well indeed, cylinderical bearings in [Nuclear Submarines](http://www.core77.com/posts/25224/lignum-vitae-wood-so-bad-ass-its-used-to-make-shaft-bearings-for-nuclear-submarines-and-more-25224)! See [here too](http://www.lignum-vitae-bearing.com)! OK so it is true! After all these years I can finally be sure, thanks google!
Comment: I never would have guessed that! I had heard that back in the "old days" there were ball bearing made of "ironwood" ([Lignum Vitae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignum_vitae)) and my (very) old copy of the [Machinery's Handbook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinery%27s_Handbook) has a lot of properties of wood along with metals and alloys.
Comment: I am sure that I *heard it*, thought it was a very long time ago so the source is no longer around to "double check". I always thought it seemed strange since wood is definitely not isotropic. It could have been cylindrical bearings, or something that was a bad idea and didn't work!
Answer: The FSW did have an oaken heatshield. I saw one on display at the bicentennial airshow (Richmond, Sydney, 1988). This craft was launched on 1987 August 5, and was previously known in the west as China 20, then variously called FSW 0-9 or FSW 0-10, depending on whose chronology you refer to. Cospar 1987 067A, NORAD 18306. The oak was charred, and some broke off when display attendants moved the spacecraft. They simply vacuumed most of it up so that the charcoal didn't mess the carpet! I was able to photograph both the exterior and interior (equipment had been removed).
As for structural elements, at the 1972 Farnborough airshow there was the backup Prospero spacecraft (1971 093A). The solar panels were hinged to provide access to the interior electronics and the wooden frame. I asked the engineer about this, asserting that this was a low fidelity mockup. No, he assured me, it was the real backup, and yes Prospero did have a wooden frame! I believed him, but even today I have the niggling suspicion that maybe I was having my leg pulled!! Prospero was built at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough, and this engineer was one of those that built it. I understand that this flight spare has been donated to the Science Museum in London. Perhaps some museum visitor / staff could ask the curators abouth this?
Comment: Excellent find, thanks! It turns out FSW is mentioned here as well: [Why did early satellites (e.g. China's Fanhui Shi Weixing) re-enter the atmosphere narrow end (nose)-first?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/19804/12102) *Welcome to Space!* :-)
Answer: The Apollo boost protective cover -- which covered the command module during launch, protected it from the type of launch damage that doomed the Shuttle Columbia, and which was ejected with the escape tower soon after launch -- was made of cork.
Comment: [The BBC, on 13 Oct 2022](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221013-why-the-humble-wine-cork-is-being-reinvented) claims: " Cork ... and its heat absorbing properties have protected space rockets from the Space Shuttle programme to Nasa's new Artemis spacecraft which has Portuguese cork in its nose cone".


Standard Lens Digital Cameras

Question: Are there any non-SLR digital cameras that come with a Standard or Telephoto lens?
Comment: Do you mean standard (not wide angle) or prime (not zoom)?
Answer: Welcome to the community.
There are many - virtually any point and shoot has standard zoom. Many (Canon SX series, for example) have telephoto zooms.
There are also interchangeable lens cameras in the Micro 4/3 family among other mirrorless cameras.
Medium format View cameras are a valid answer to this question as well, but I guess it is not what you mean here. EDIT I just noticed you mentioned "digital cameras" so I guess the view camera category is not a valid answer, after all... but there certainly are some mediums with digital backs (a couple tens of thousands $$, though, and I am not completely sure they do not fall under the SLR definition)
Answer: This question is confusing, so I'm going to answer both way I can interpret it.
Are you looking for a bundle with a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (ILC)? Seems pointless since you can get ANY lens you want, even if it does not come with it. If you really want a bundle, then many cameras come with 2-lens kits. The second lens is always a telephoto one and the first always covers the standard focal-length. The catch is they those are often of poor quality which is why the bundles (called kits) are quite cheap.
...Or...
Are you looking for a fixed-lens camera that covers either standard (They ALL do) or telephoto focal-lengths? Most modern cameras reach at least where telephoto starts and some, called ultra-zooms, go really far, up to 840mm.
If you know what focal-length you want covered you can use Neocamera's Camera Finder. Just put what you want in 'Widest Focal Length' and in 'Longest Focal Length'. It will find you all current cameras that match.
Answer: In addition to the mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras, there are several non-SLR large-sensor compact cameras on the market which come with fixed normal-range (or slightly wide) lenses.

Leica X1
Fujifilm FinePix X100 (which I'm drooling over; not yet released)
Sigma DP2s
Sigma DP1x

Standard Lens Digital Cameras


GPS Suggestions

Question: I have decided to play in the world of GPS modules. I have read the GPS Buying Guide from Sparkfun, but still am not sure which unit I want to go with. I am leaning toward the LS20031, do any of you have any experience with GPS modules? Any advice you would like to add to the chiphacker community?
Comment: Mostly just curiosity. I know many of our students have had issues finding one that can get a lock inside a building. I know buildings are difficult to get locks in, but my Garmin GPS is able to get a lock in the same room. So, not looking for high accuracy or refresh rate, just something that can have reception that is about the same as commercial products.
Comment: might want to give a bit more info on your application ?
Answer: u-blox makes the best ones, but they are expensive. They are used by the military and government agencies because of their performance. I didn't have any problems with one of their modules on a home-made PCB, interfaced to a 16F88 PIC. It works indoors.
Answer: I recently purchased a couple of GPS modules for a project I'm working on.  You didn't specifically mention Arduino, but I bought the GPS logger shield from Adafruit with an EM-406a module.  I'm not using an Arduino, but I figured it was a compact solution that had two things I wanted (GPS and removable storage).  The EM-406a had no problems getting a satellite lock inside my office.  I also got the Copernicus DIP Module from Sparkfun so I could breadboard with it. No problems so far - just read the datasheet and remember to pull XRESET and XSTANDBY high.
Comment: Glad to hear that you were able to get a lock inside your office. I am going to look into these. I actually use PICs and MSP430s. Around this community it seems as though many people use Arduinos.
Answer: There's lots of detail about building a GPS to SD Card Logger here. It uses a PIC but you may be able to make alterations as you want.

GPS Suggestions


Is exchanging currency/money permissible?

Question: In Islam I heard that same thing can't be exchange with profit or loss. Now I'm curious to know about currency/money exchanging is permissible or not in Islam?
Answer: ❶ - Are you speaking about different currencies? You cannot exchange the same currency (like gold) for different amounts, as that is riba (taking more for less, when it is the same currency).
❷ - But if you are speaking of exchange of gold for silver, and so on, then of course the amounts will differ based on the value being different.
Proof for both of the above points are available in the hadith below:

قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله
  عليه وسلم  " لاَ تَبِيعُوا الذَّهَبَ بِالذَّهَبِ إِلاَّ سَوَاءً
  بِسَوَاءٍ، وَالْفِضَّةَ بِالْفِضَّةِ إِلاَّ سَوَاءً بِسَوَاءٍ،
  وَبِيعُوا الذَّهَبَ بِالْفِضَّةِ وَالْفِضَّةَ بِالذَّهَبِ كَيْفَ
  شِئْتُمْ " - Narrated Abu Bakra: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Don't
  sell gold for gold unless equal in weight, nor silver for silver
  unless equal in weight, but you could sell gold for silver or silver
  for gold as you like." (Bukhari).
Answer: Allah knows best, but in my opinion, it depends on the context.
If you are exchanging to gamble and try your luck in gaining a profit from the various rates during the day or week, then it is definitely haram.
If you are exchanging to go to a different country where you can only spend in their local currency, then it is a necessity and hence not haram.
If you are exchanging in a trading environment where you may incur a profit or loss on exchange, even if you meant for it to be so via forward trading, then I'd say it is not haram, since Islam does allow trading for a profit.
Essentially, a Dollar and Pound is not the same thing. The Dollar is a legal tender backed by the central bank of the USA and the Pound is backed by the Queen(or UK Bank?). They have different purchasing power and hence are not on a 1:1 exchange rate.
The other way to look at this is that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is Halal, and in terms of Finance, only Usury and Interest are haram as far as I know.
Answer: It is, because all islam countries have national banks which keep some foreign currency reserves. Also most of the islam countries have normal exchanges for tourists. And they must have it right, otherwise Allah would stop it - he is all powerful.


Is "j'" a contracted form of "je"?

Question: I am a beginner. I learnt that "Je suis un homme" translates to "I am a man", but to say "I write", I should use "J'écris". Is "j'" a contracted form of "je" like "don't" for "do not"?
Answer: J' is a Je indeed, but it is not the same as the do not/don't contraction.
In the case of do not/don't, you contract because you want to save some effort/time by biting one syllable.
In the case of je/j', you don't get to choose whether you contract or not. It is a matter of pronunciation: when je is followed with a word beginning with a vowel, instead of pronouncing the e then the vowel, you eliminate the hiatus by removing the e.
In formal language, this is the only case when the e should disappear. In spoken French (or transcriptions, for books for instance), it is sometimes ignored nonetheless, and phrases like je suis are often pronounced chuis and transcripted as j'suis.
Comment: Is it a matter of pronunciation if formal French does not follow spoken French? And then, there is the problem of semi-vowels which can go both ways with different verbs *je ouate* [ʒəwat] vs *j'ois* [ʒwa] or with the same verb *je huile* vs *j'huile*...
Comment: Cases like _j'suis_ are informal: the elision is not here to avoid two vowels causing a hiatus. The rules for elision are clearly described. The case for _ouater/ouïr_ is interesting, but I suppose this comes from the infinitive form or an evolution of pronunciation. Some sounds avoid elision (as in English: you say _a uniform_, not _an uniform_). There are precise rules (which I cannot find), and there are the cases outside those rules, which are common in spoken French (like _j'suis_) or just plain mistakes.
Answer: Yes, "J'écris" is the contraction of je and écris. Unlike in English, contracted forms in the French language are mandatory.

Is "j'" a contracted form of "je"?


How long do viruses, such as Zika, stay in the body?

Question: Can a virus stay in your body (after recovery) in a concentration that is sufficient to infect someone?
Is it known how long the Zika virus persists in the body?
Answer: According to the CDC the zika virus persists in the blood for around a week.

Zika virus usually remains in the blood of an infected person for about a week but it can be found longer in some people. - CDC

I can't find much information on how long the Zika virus specifically can persist after recovery, it seems unknown just now. However, it is advised to be careful about sexual contact after infection, which suggests longer persistence is suspected in other fluids/tissues.

British health authorities have suggested using condoms for at least 28 days. - NYTimes

Some viruses do persist for a while after recovery, including Ebola Virus Disease, which can be sexually transmitted for around three months after recovery:

Some viruses, including Ebola, can linger for some time after recovery in parts of the body (for example, testes, eyes, spinal column fluid) not easily reached by the immune system. - CDC

These parts of the body have immune privilege. This means they can be infected by antigens without producing strong immune responses. This is thought to occur to protect vital tissues/areas which could be damaged by inflamation and the immune response, such as the brain, eyes, spinal column, testes, and fetuses.

Since I wrote this answer there have been several reported cases of sexually transmitted zika, highlighting the problems that can arise from immune privilege.
Comment: By coincidence I was making edits at the time of your comment - does that help @Christiaan
Comment: And the rest of the body?
Answer: Some viruses can stay in your body for your entire life, for example Herpes Simplex Virus.


Gimp doesn't appear to render a simple .gif image properly

Question: I have a simple .gif image that I attempted to open and edit in GIMP 2.6.11 on Windows XP. The .gif image is quite simply a 4px by 170px top border for a box with rounded corners; that is, a long horizontal line with a curve at each end. On opening the image file, GIMP shows the horizontal line part, but the pixels relating to the curves at the extreme ends are missing.
This is the original .gif image:

This is the image having been opened using GIMP and then immediately saved back as a .gif image again:

I did a brief bit of Googling and did not find anything that seemed to relate to this problem. I did find some reference to a patent relating to the .gif format which meant that GIMP once didn't ship with .gif support; whether that's any relevance to this issue, or means that GIMP's .gif support will never be entirely complete, I don't know.
In the meantime I can simply use Windows Paint to do what I wanted to do with the image (which is to simply elongate it). I also use Ubuntu normally, so later on I'll boot back into that and see how GIMP behaves with this image there.
EDIT: I found that if I open the .gif image in Windows Paint and then save it, it will then open and render properly (i.e. with the curves) in GIMP.
Comment: I suspect that it is an issue (bug?) with the GIMP gif colour indexing.
Answer: This looks like a GIMP bug. I can reproduce it in 2.6.11 on Windows 7 x64. Suggest you submit a bug report to http://www.gimp.org/bugs/


Is the mounting screw for tripods always directly on the optical axis?

Question: Is the mounting screw on tripods always directly on the optical axis? I have a D5000 here and in this particular case it is. But can I trust that it's always there?
Comment: — all camera designs are compromises, so it comes down to priorities. On many compact cameras, the choice probably comes down to an off-axis tripod socket or _none at all_.
Comment: After I read the answer I don't know what to say. It so ridiculous. Why does ANYONE buy such crap!?
Answer: I'm assuming you mean the tripod mounting screw thread that's on the camera, not on the tripod.  The answer that that is no, not always, although in most cases it will be.  I've seen cameras (mainly point and shoot devices) that have the tripod mounting screw located off-center and/or away from the center of the lens.
Comment: I think the pedantic word is "threaded socket", as "screw thread" refers to both.
Comment: To be honest, all tripods if seen so far had a mounting screw while the camera had the corresponding *screw thread*.
Answer: You can count on it on all currently produced DSLRs.
You cannot count on it in general though.
There three possible positions for the tripod mount:

Center of the optical axis: Ideal for panoramas. All DSLRs.
Center of gravity: Most stable. Problematic for panoramas. Most ultra-zooms.
Neither: Not ideal for anything, often better than nothing. Generally ultra-compacts.

Last year I also encountered the first modern digital camera not to have a tripod socket.
Answer: It is true of all Canon and Nikon DSLR's, but not all cameras, especially compact cameras.
From www.pinnacle-vr.com:
The Camera Plate works with any camera that has its tripod hole in the center of the optical axis. This includes all Canon and Nikon DSLR's
Answer: I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a DSLR that doesn't have the tripod mount very close to the optical axis, but when you start getting into smaller-format cameras, you'll occasionally see it moved to one side (ex: Olympus E-P1, Panasonic LX3, LX5).  In a DSLR, this would be considered a serious design flaw, but it seems to be generally forgiven in those smaller form factors.
DPReview's detailed review of the E-P1, for instance, notes the location of the tripod mount as being off-center, but doesn't include this as one of their "con" factors for this camera.
Answer: No. On Leicas, for example, they could not have put the tripod mount further off the lens axis if they had tried. It is off in the extreme left or right (depending on the exact camera model) corner of the base-plate.


8 ball pools, foul rules when only 8 ball is on the table?

Question: What happens if I've only 8 ball remaining, my opponent has his category object balls remaining. I called a pocket for 8 ball but didn't pocket it and it still remains on the table.
Will my opponent get a ball in hand foul and can put cue ball anywhere on the table ?
Answer: If it's a legal shot before the 8 ball, it's legal when you are on the 8 ball.
In other words, the 8 ball doesn't change the rules for a foul.
The only difference I've ever seen is the APA rule, that says a scratch (and only a scratch, no other kind of foul) when playing the 8 ball will lose the game.
Answer: No, your opponent can't put cue ball anywhere.
The rules says:

The shooter fails to strike one of their own object balls (or the 8
  ball, if all of said object balls are already pocketed) with the cue
  ball, before other balls (if any) are contacted by the cue ball.

If these fouls are made, the ball can be placed anywhere on the table to prevent a player from making a purposeful foul to disadvantage the other player.
So, the only way your opponent has is if you do not hit the 8 ball.


How do you know if a book is ready?

Question: My mom says that my books are really good and that people will enjoy them. I know parents say things to their kids to keep their hopes and dreams alive, but I want to know: How do you know if your book will really be enjoyable for everyone? How do you tell if your book is ready for the world?
Comment: Everyone will not enjoy your book. I guarantee that people will hate it. Hopefully some will like it and be inspired by it, but you can always count on the haters.

Your book is your book. You are writing for an audience and if you want to sell it, you will need to meet the desires of the masses, but always write the book for you first. Then, if you need to change it to make money, you can make that decision down the road.
Comment: The book is ready when you are out of tuna fish and Jack Daniels and the landlord is giving you the choice between being evicted and giving him hand jobs.
Comment: If there is a bookshop near your (one of the older non-franchise types), print some copies and ask them to have a look. They are objective (your friends and family are not). You could give them 10 copies to hand out to regulars for free (regulars will come back, so you can gather an opinion).
Comment: @DeanCorso That sounds more like "ooh, I should take notes because this will be great background material for my one character!"
Comment: It's never ready; you just run out of time, money, drive or ideas.
Answer: You need to run your book past readers who are capable of assessing it objectively. That may or may not include your mother, but it should certainly include more people than just your mother. Look among your friends and friends-of-friends for people who read a lot of books in the same genre/style as yours. Ask them to give a critique. You are not obliged to follow what they say, but be open minded.
Do not let this process delay too long the real test. Submit it to a publisher. When it is rejected, as most books by unknown authors are, submit it to another publisher. And again, and again. Or, if you can afford to, self-publish. It is much easier and cheaper to do this using electronic publishing than it used to be. To self publish is to submit your work to the ultimate test: the reading public. I am afraid that there is no real way of being sure that your book is ready for the world except actually showing it to the world.
Criticism is inevitable. As The Thom says above, you can be certain that your book won't be enjoyable for everyone. To be honest most writers struggle to find much of an audience and would even welcome a bad review on the grounds that at least someone is paying attention.
This advice isn't intended to crush your dreams but to give you a better chance of making them reality. Rejection always hurts. But if you really want to be a writer you will take the risk. I've read that hardly anyone who has written a book regrets doing so.
Speaking personally, despite having a publications list as long as your arm in a non-fiction field, I really struggle with a tendency to delay and delay until I am sure my fiction is "ready" by which I mean "perfect", a thing that will never happen. So I'm talking to me as well as to you!
Comment: I've heard several publishers say that they are ***really** skeptical* of mansucripts submitted by an author whose first book was self-published, to the point of pretty much dumping it on sight. I would be wary of starting with self-publishing.
Comment: @Angew: publishers are really sceptical of manuscripts submitted by an author, that's just the way it is. Agents can help a bit, a history of self-publishing can probably hurt a bit, and a truly breathtaking concept and first page can help a lot. But fundamentally publishers don't read everything they're sent. I've only ever interacted with commissioning editors at industry parties and suchlike, so I don't have an overall picture, but I'd be fairly surprised if they even *knew* about your self-published work on first sight of what you submit, so you'd have that going for you :-)
Comment: But I'm sure it's still true that there are traditional publishers who view self-publishing on a par with fanfic: it proves nothing about your publishability and might mark you undesirable. Fanfic worked for Cassandra Clare, self-publishing worked for Paolini, but that doesn't detract from your point that people should be wary of the effect of the "wrong" background!
Answer: In general, I think @lostinfrance's answer is excellent, this is just a supplement to that:
You can't necessarily ever know if your book is ready or not in terms of content, but you do need to make sure it is ready from a technical point of view.  If it has any spelling, grammar or formatting issues, it will never be given a fair read by most people (particularly professionals in the industry).
There are a number of good books out there (you should be able to find some at your local library) that cover all the basics of formatting a manuscript correctly for submission.
As far as content, it's good to get an outside opinion (not a family member or best friend) but ultimately you need to make the determination for yourself --any given person is just giving you his or her own reaction, another reader might respond differently.
Answer: As others have noted, at absolute minimum you must have someone look over your work for technical mistakes (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary). You must do this even if you self-publish. No one is going to read a book so badly structured that it's incomprehensible.
I think it is also imperative to have an editor, someone who is at least moderately objective and who will be honest with you about plot and character. It helps to have someone familiar with your book's genre, but for me it's not a requirement, because you also want readers who are outside your niche to find your story appealing and understandable.
Also, remember that even the most loved books have detractors (and conversely, the most hated books have fans). Your goal should not be to please all of the people all of the time, because that will never happen, but to please some people enough that they recommend your book to others because they think it's worth sharing.
Answer: I do agree with some of the previous highlights but my opinion is different, similar, but different.
Write your book and your story for you. Yes, ensure that it is technically ready (Lauren Ipsum expressed this subject perfectly). But do not change your story for anyone just because it will fit the masses. That's the first step to hating your work, because you're no longer writing it for you and because you have a great story brewing in your mind.

Write your story for you and for you alone.
Don't listen to the sad people that says your story needs to apply to the masses. While this might seem reasonable because you want it to sell, money will not make you happy. (Writing will because you, like the rest of us, love it. Can I get an Amen?)
Do your writing for the pleasure you get from writing. To feed the creative side of you and all it's passion. Put YOUR heart, feelings, creativeness into it. (Like you already have, I'm sure.)
Publish the book if you want and consider only one persons opinion if it's ready or not. You. Do you feel that it's ready?

Most importantly! (This concerns point 4.) Don't let a fear of not being accepted stand in the way of you sharing your story with the world. And do not overly obsess about how your sentences are structured and what would work better than what you had previously. This can be done for years and years and you'll never get anywhere.
With this said, Proof-readers are a good thing. Let people you trust read your story and only rarely let them affect the outcome of your characters and the plot if something really doesn't make sense with YOUR vision of YOUR story. Maybe someone goes out of character and does something the reader will feel that character would never do? Then you need to consider if that has to be changed or not. Maybe the character is just going down a bad path? You catch my drift. In essence it's up to you as the writer and creator.
As my rant is coming to an end I will finish off with a summary:
Write your story and share it with the world if you want. You can never please everyone and don't try, because if you do it's no longer your story. You will rarely be happy with the outcome if you allow other people to define your story with their views and assumptions about what your story should be. This is as true in writing as it is in life.
Write your own story.
Answer: A book is ready for the world when the composition is complete and correct (grammar, flow, the story finishes, etc.) and when you are satisfied with it. Putting it out to other readers as a pilot is part of putting it out to the world in my opinion. When your book is out in the world, you get feedback on it which both defines and determines if your book is ready. It's an iterative cycle. If the book isn't ready and can still be edited, then make the appropriate changes. If the book can no longer be edited, it's a bummer but not a loss. You can take what you learned and apply it to the next project.
The feedback from putting your work out there will range wildly in both usefulness and hurtfulness. Take the positive stuff, whether it is useful or not, and hold tight to it. Let it lift you and encourage you. Let it push you upward and outward. It is one of the sweetest things in life.
For the negative stuff, if it isn't constructive or useful (e.g. "this sucks!" or "why would anyone read this?") discard it. Forget it. Erase it from your mind. If the criticism is malicious or too generic there is literally nothing you can do to fix it. All it will do is weight you down. Don't allow that to happen. Ever.
And lastly, we have the critical but useful stuff. For better or worse, this is the biggest area for growth and is a valuable indicator of readiness. This is when people say stuff like "this character behaves  weird to me" or "there was way too much description on that doorknob" or "I have no idea what's going on right now". It may be hard to not take personally, but this is really the good stuff. It's what people honestly think and feel about what you've written and is great way to become aware of problems you didn't know were there and to get a feel for how your book is being received. Through this mirror you can fix what needs fixing (and not all of it will) and put it back out there for another round.
The cycle continues until either the world wears you down or you convince the world your work is good.

How do you know if a book is ready?


Diff in Transactional and Non-transactional tables

Question: What is the difference between Transactional and Non-transactional tables? And How will the sql query go if I want to create them?
Also when to use transactional or non-transactional tables?.
Answer: Transactional table means, if data manipulation done with in transaction then rollback / commit will work.
For Non Transactional table, You need to rollback the changes with manual code. No Impact of rollBack and commit. These tables are useful for performing the statements with high performance.
By default, MySQL runs with autocommit mode enabled. This means that as soon as you execute a statement that updates (modifies) a table, MySQL stores the update on disk.
If you are using a transaction-safe storage engine (such as InnoDB, BDB, or NDB Cluster), you can disable autocommit mode with the following statement:
SET AUTOCOMMIT=0;
Answer: The major difference between these types of tables is that Transactional tables support transactions
Creation asample:
<code>CREATE TABLE  mytable (
  `pk_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `name` varchar(128) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`pk_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
</code>


How does frame stiffness affect a quadcopter?

Question: When choosing a frame for a drone, something I hear mentioned occasionally is how flexible the carbon fiber is. It seems that the general opinion is: more flex in a frame is worse. How would having a frame with flex in it be bad for a high-powered quadcopter? Would it impact the efficiency and performance of the quadcopter?
Comment: I've never heard of flexible carbon composites, and I can't find any notable mentions with a (*albeit quick and dirty*) google search. Could you point us in the direction of the kind of thing you're talking about?
Comment: @ifconfig I'm not referring to any special flexible composites, just to carbon fiber that is more flexible than other carbon fiber due to its thickness, fiber patterning, shape, etc. Certain carbon fiber frames are just more flexible than others. One example I can think of is the frame for the Happymodel Larva X HD, which is very flexible because of the carbon fiber layering and/or shape.
Answer: Background
Stiffness, oscillation, and vibration damping are separate concepts but all somewhat relevant to the question. Each affects flight dynamics, and each is (somewhat) a function of material choice.
For example, titanium is very stiff, and it rings like a bell. CF is very stiff, but it rings like mud. Aluminum is in between.
Stiffness
Stiffness is a good thing when you don't want your structure to be compliant[*]. Stiffness means that the frame isn't deflecting, which is important for the presumed laws of motion. Put another way, a quadcopter's autopilot assumes that all the motors are pointed in a fixed direction[**]. If those directions change, i.e. because of flexing, then the most fundamental assumptions of its flight dynamics are false. It's no surprise flight flight performance degrades!
Of course, any structure will bend/deflect/twist under load, no matter how stiff. What's important is whether it does any of these sufficiently enough to compromise your flight goal. If you're trying to do telescopic videography then a little bit of error is immediately visible in the results. If you're learning to fly, then so long as the autopilot keeps things sunny-side up you're fine.
Oscillation
Oscillation, such as control-surface flutter, occur when the  entire structure starts deforming like a spring. This can dramatically build up and quickly rip the airframe to shreds. (It really is that fast, that violent, and that scary.)
If a quad's arms are insufficiently damped, oscillations can occur. Most frequently, it will occur as a twist about the arm axis, but I've also seen it happen in the flapping direction. Because of differences in dynamics between a multirotor and a fixed-wing, it's unlikely that your quad will suffer inflight failure but it's also very hard to keep control, both for you and the autopilot.
The closer you get to instability, the more energy you have to expend to keep things stable. In the case of a multi, at the very least this translates into decreased flight time.
The more powerful your input (e.g. a powerful quadcopter), the easier it is to drive a system past a critical damping threshold. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was famous for this when the wind  was blowing and the bridge was slightly wet. More recently, these out of control harmonic oscillations have famously been seen on the Millennium Bridge in London (surprisingly due to human footfall) and the Humen Perl River Bridge in China (heavy winds).
A full discussion of how to control oscillation is outside the scope of this answer. However, it is relevant to note that some materials are springier than others, and these materials are the ones more likely to have pathological  oscillation.
Vibration
Vibration is a form of oscillation, but I'm breaking it out so I can specifically address how it affects sensor data. Vibration is an issue when it causes signal integrity issues with the IMU (i.e. accelerometer + gyrometer)[***]. This can confuse the autopilot, leading it to make incorrect estimations of the aircraft's roll-pitch-yaw, and as a result respond inappropriately. This can and does cause crashes.
Again, a full discussion of how to control vibration is outside the scope of this answer. And once again, the springier the material is, the more it is likely to have pathological vibration.
Composites vs. metals
Composites (e.g. carbon fiber, fiberglass, kevlar, ...) have what are called anisotropic properties. This means that they don't have the same properties in all directions. Consider a square sheet of aluminum. No matter which axis you pull it on, it has the same strength, stiffness, heat transfer, etc... This is isotropic.
Now consider the same sheet made out of unidirectional carbon fiber. Along the carbon fiber axis it's incredibly strong. But turned 90 degrees, where the only thing holding it together is the glue, you'll find that it has no strength whatsoever.
You would be correct in assuming that this difference in properties extends to oscillation and vibration. The upshot is that composites can be tricky to chose because two seemingly similar structures (e.g. a tube) can have very different properties.

[*] Able to move and bend, like the Goshawk.

[**] See math in https://drones.stackexchange.com/a/323/46.

[***] For example, aliasing and clipping.
Answer: TL;DR:
Yes, a semi-rigid frame will cause vibrations while flying because it alters the nature of motor and propeller oscillations as the frame parts move around. This will cause a drop in efficency as the flight controller attempts to combat these vibrations and return to stable flight, using slightly more power in the process.
Excessive vibrations in parts of the frame caused by semi-flexible pieces and or unsecured electronics parts can also cause damage to the frame and electrical components and increases the risk of accidents where the quad falls apart prematurely or drops out of the air.
More Details
Strictly speaking, any energy that goes into contorting the frame is energy that didn't go into accelerating/decelerating the quad, which is to say that bending the frame inflight will decrease the efficency of the whole system. This is also true about the thrust force vector, which will deviate slightly from vertical when the frame is bent, decreasing efficency. These losses would usually be very tiny and almost negligible because the amount of bending possible on most commercially available frames is miniscule. If these kinds of losses are a problem on your quadcopter, you need to address them before you fly because they will likely cause your quad to fall out of the sky and or cause damage to itself.
However, there are other issues with frames that allow parts to flex freely. Semi-rigid frames will move with the motor and propeller vibrations and bend when motor thrust changes, causing even more trouble for the flight controller and can impact flight performance. This can be another source of efficency loss as the flight controller tries to compensate for oscillations that are caused by parts of the frame vibrating uncontrollably. This is why it's always recommended to fully tighten screws and make sure all parts are carefully secured to the frame before flight.
Comment: I see where you're coming from but don't agree. Unfortunately, not all frames are well made and a "loose arm" is actually a part of the design. For example, I've used this frame before (https://amazon.com/gp/product/B010FIIQL6) that has a bug which results in it being nearly impossile to tighten the arms enough to prevent them from vibrating up and down inflight. This impacts the effective overall stiffness of the frame. It's an edge case for sure, but it is a real one.
Comment: Vibrations are generated by the motors and props. A "semi-rigid frame" will not 'cause' vibration. And I do not believe that the frame will amplify vibrations unless the vibrations that are caused by the motors and props are in the resonant frequency of the frame. ~ I do not believe that any frame manufacturer even knows the resonant frequency of their frames. Frame stiffness or flexibility is such an insignificant part of the efficiency equation that there is no data on the subject.
Comment: @HansenJC001 I don't think I ever claimed that motors and props weren't the source of vibrations. What I meant to say that a semi-rigid frame will alter the nature of those vibrations by flopping around.witihn its range of motion, not amplify them. I agree that it's not a significant source of efficency loss, but is it not the effect of flight controllers' attempt to correct for the vibrations?
Comment: To really test for and learn about the interaction between the frame and the flight controller would take a minimum of three different frames of widely different stiffness. Let's call them flexible, medium, and stiff. And then run the motors through a programmed set of maneuvers. Record and then compare recordings of vibrations at key selected locations. The differences might be measurable, but I think they would not be enough to impact the FC instructions. And the significant location that needs to be measured would be at the flight controller.
Comment: On a test stand, I think this setup would provide the results you are suggesting, but if this happened in the air, I think that there would be a noticeable difference. From personal experience, having an arm loose does negatively impact flight performance noticeably. But you're right, that's not a scientific environment with minimal variables.
Comment: The question is about stiffness. And in flight, "a loose arm" is a condition that is not within the bounds of the question of frame stiffness. It is quite simply broken. A loose arm is not an un-stiff frame.
Answer: I am going to jump in here with more than comments to other answers and I am going to answer this question in my own unique way. First, I have a similar related question, and I recently posed it to an industry expert. I asked a question about stiffness of Carbon Fiber frames. Sorta like this: "How stiff is stiff enough?"
And the answer which I will paraphrase here: "nobody measures the stiffness of multirotor frames". And... "They fly it till it breaks and then make it stronger/stiffer if needed."  I took liberties with this Q&A so that nobody googles it to find the conversation. I believe the expert told me it did not matter. I was happy to get an answer from him.
So, the original question stands as asked. "How does the frame stiffness affect a quadcopter?" And my version: "How stiff is stiff enough?" I believe that no study has ever been performed on stiffness and there may never be one.
If you can bend it with your hands it is probably too flexible. When it breaks make it stronger.
If anyone has a source for test data of multirotor frame stiffness, I am eager to learn.
Answer: The Geeling Lightning 120 is known for its very flexible carbon, but when I fly it in my 100 foot back yard with many trees, I notice no problems. I love this 3" quad. I did however have enough damage to the props so that I was eventually getting Jello. No problem. I put new props on and the Jello was gone. I have not had the Jello problems with stiffer frames and   damaged props.


How to calculate the bitcoin tx fees?

Question:
How were the transaction fees of 0.00011689 BTC calculated?
Answer: price_per_byte is the key that effect transaction cost for user. Generally standard fees for price_per_byte = 206 satoshi per byte which is too costly and higher for user, we can reduce it upto 2 satoshi. it will cost very low.
206 satoshi per byte transaction completes in very next block or in very next transaction means immediately. while 2 satoshi per kb transaction takes upto 2 to 3 hours to complete transaction.
general transaction space will be 224 to 299 kb if user send BTC to single user amount is not the matter here, so transaction cost will be very low based how much satoshi amount user has setup for transaction.
Comment: `general transaction space will be 224 to 299 kb` It should be bytes, not kb.
Answer: generally you can calculate the fees based on this formula:
fee = (n_inputs * 148 + n_outputs * 34 + 10) * price_per_byte
So you would have to know how many inputs are necessary for your transaction, and usually you have two outputs. To further understand these details, one would have to have a look at how transactions are set up in the ecosystem (bitcoin.org -> developper section is a good start).
Assuming you have one input, and two outputs, this sums up to ~350 Bytes, multiplied with 35 Satoshi per Byte would a near value of your picture. So there is a value slightly less than 35 Satoshi per bytes chosen.
Comment: this formula is very obsolete. it does not care about compressed/uncompressed public keys, it counts only p2pkh inputs and outputs, it knows nothing about segwit technology, multisig and all other protocol things
Comment: @amaclin Can you expand on how fees ought to be calculated when dealing w/ multisig, segwit, et all.
Answer:
How does the client (on screenshot) calculates fees?

or

How to calculate fees in your own environment?

a1) Depends on client
a2) There are many ways. For example, you can make the transaction twice: first time create and sign it with zero fees, take the size in bytes and multiply by the rate you want to. Next create final transaction with wanted satoshi-per-byte fee.

How to calculate the bitcoin tx fees?


Will deflation destroy Bitcoin?

Question: With the limited total quantity of bitcoins, and people losing their wallets constantly decreasing that number, won't rampant deflation destroy Bitcoin?
Comment: Nah! Bitcoin is the future of money.
Answer: There are two potential ways in which monetary deflation can impact a currency:
1.  Usability
Most modern currencies have a minimum unit, such as the penny in the United States, or the yen in Japan.  If these currencies existed in only finite quantities, then as the economy grew and/or physical money was lost, there might eventually be too few of these units in circulation to allow normal commerce.  Imagine if, for example, the U.S. dollar became so rare that you could buy a car with a single U.S. penny.  How would you buy a loaf of bread?
Bitcoin, however, does not have this problem because unlike the physical currencies of most countries, bitcoins are infinitely divisible.  Even if only one bitcoin remained, it would be sufficient to run a substantial economy on, based on the ability to use tiny fractions of it like the Satoshi.  If even the Satoshi were to become too highly valued/unavailable for commerce, the Bitcoin protocol could be updated to allow even smaller denominations.  So the usability of bitcoins is safe from the effects of deflation.
2. Broader economic consequences from deflation
Many economists believe that deflation is bad for an economy because people will be less likely to invest their money if they can "earn" increased value simply by holding on to it.  Why buy something today, the argument goes, if you could buy it for half as much in a few months time?  Also, taking out loans becomes very difficult, because to be practical they have to have negative interest rates and then why would anyone loan out money in the first place?
However, there is good reason to believe that deflation might not have such a negative effect on Bitcoin.  For one, Bitcoin is unlikely to become the only currency in the world economy, so investments, loans, etc. can simply be denominated in another currency.  But even more importantly there are several concrete examples from history of strictly deflationary currencies.
For example, the Iraqi "Swiss" dinar was a currency that ceased being printed after the first Gulf War, and was left in use only by the Kurdish regions of the country.  With a finite number of "Swiss" dinars in existence, and some being lost or damaged over time, this left the currency in precisely the same state as Bitcoin.  Since it was no longer backed by a government, many economists expected the currency and its economy to collapse.  Instead, the Kurdish economy continued largely as normal for 13 years, and the "Swiss" dinar even appreciated against the "Saddam" dinar that was meant to replace it.
Rick Falkvinge also raises another excellent point regarding deflationary economies.  If, as economists expect, people would decline to buy something today as opposed to next year for half price, then it should be the case that no one ever buys computers, right?  But in fact, the computer industry thrives despite this continued trend of "whatever something costs today, it will cost a fraction of that within a few years".
Ultimately, this is a question for economists to duke out, and you can find more information about how different economic schools approach the problem here.  Suffice it to say, this cannot be considered a crippling fault in Bitcoin as a technology.
Comment: just a note to say that I think this model is the best for answering questions that have an inherent degree of speculation/opinion. Lay out the possible reasons, admit there are multiple views, and give counter-examples. Well done!
Comment: fwiw, i enjoyed the discussion. if comments are not for discussion, then what are they for? :P
Comment: What does "continued as normal" mean for the Kurdish economy and is that our target for the bitcoin economy? That economy also received $8.5b in food-for-oil aid.
Comment: @Jamie Since this is not a strategy site for the _promotion_ of Bitcoin, but rather a site to compile quality Q&A _about_ Bitcoin, there's no such thing as "our target."  This is merely a peripheral example that attempts to invite a comparison to a similar situation in history in order to point out that moneys in and of themselves can be deflationary and still survive.  I'm sure different economists have their own opinions on the _degree_ of success Bitcoin will experience, but that's getting fairly off-topic for this site.
Comment: @eMansipater I was just pointing out that a currency which survived a deflationary period, in a war zone, and with $8.5bn foreign input, is hardly a useful example, since there were some extreme factors that likely played a more significant role in the currency's viability and the country's economy. I do not believe that this evidence provides "good reason" for whether or not deflation will have a "negative effect" on bitcoin in a first-world country, with the US dollar as its primary currency, and not surrounded by enemies. YMMV.
Comment: @jamie comments aren't really for discussions.  The example offered is not claimed to be representative, only to open a possibility (which a single counterexample suffices for).  As above, the _degree_ of success is something for economists to argue about and history to figure out for itself.
Comment: @nanotube :) I know, I know.  But anything that goes more than one 'round' should really be in chat.
Comment: Gold and silver have been a form of deflationary currency around the world fo a very long time. At least in regards to having a limited supply to go around.
Comment: Bitcoin is the greatest asset bubble in history, because: (2) deflationary money is obsolete economics, and (1) fixing your usability point requires a hard fork that is not coming.
Answer: No.  There are many things that could destroy bitcoin, but deflation is not one of them.  While deflation is problematic for a currency backed by debt (as most, if not all, national currencies are), it is not an issue for commodity currencies (and bitcoin is most similar to commodity currencies).
The deflation argument goes something like this: everyone, believing that the value of the currency is going to rise will simply hold the currency and never spend it.  But this argument completely ignores the need for diversification (would you put all of your wealth into bitcoin?).  It also ignores the fact that if people decided to put all their wealth into bitcoin and save everything, they would still need to eat and buy things at some point.  They would have no choice but to spend it.  And, if everyone actually did invest everything into bitcoin, it would create a bubble in the value that would eventually deflate and teach everyone why diversification is good.  The argument also ignores the fact that hoarding itself is not bad...when people hoard bitcoin, they cause the value to rise and that creates wealth that others can use for their needs.  In a way, hoarding is an investment in the broad bitcoin economy.
Answer: No, for two reasons:
First, Bitcoins are very divisible. So it wouldn't create the kinds of problems having a penny be enough to buy a car would create. (How would you buy a candy bar?)
Second, while deflation would provide an incentive for people to hoard a currency rather than spend it, it provides an equal incentive for people to try to pry that currency out of other people's hands by any means. If I'd rather hold my Bitcoins than spend them (so that you'd have to offer me more for them), you'd rather have my Bitcoins than something else (so you'd be willing to offer me more for them). It simply cancels out.

In order for a currency to be used to pay wages, and therefore widely used in general, the prices for goods that people buy would be fairly stable. Otherwise, people will reject the currency. Perhaps more importantly, employers will not agree to pay workers in a currency that is appreciating in value, as this would require them to lower wages constantly, something workers will not accept.

If we lived in a world with stable currencies rather than inflating currencies, you could make this very same argument to show that people would never agree to be paid in dollars, because that requires them to get constant wage hikes, something employers will not accept. But they do. So this is pure speculation that is against the evidence. Employees accept inflating currencies, there's no reason to think employers won't accept deflating ones.

Falling prices will cause people to delay purchases, and is symptomatic of lower demand in general. This causes a depression. The example of computers given by many respondents is wrong. This is a case where new, higher quality models are replacing older models at the same price-point. It would be correct if the overall amount of money spent on computers (new and old) declined, but this is not the case.

Again, if we had a stable currency, this same argument would be used to show people will never accept the dollar. Why would anyone sell me anything today if they can sell it for more tomorrow? Don't rising prices cause people to delay sales?
Comment: "Don't rising prices cause people to delay sales?" - greatly put. I have been following our deeply flawed, doomed-to-fail monetary system for a while now, but I never thought of this sort of argument. Thank you. You have expanded my knowledge today.
Answer: This is essentially the very same argument recently put forth by paul krugman. And it is wrong. Deflation is only a problem with debt-based money. Therefore not a problem with bitcoin. For details see the following article:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/530678-minorman/214527-paul-krugman-s-take-on-bitcoin
Answer: I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who have answered this question.  Everyone here clearly wants bitcoin to succeed, and so everyone is enthusiastic.  I am enthusiastic, too.
I am afraid, however, that this enthusiasm is coloring respondents' logic.  Literally every response on this page (especially the highest ranked one) is wrong.
In order for a currency to be used to pay wages, and therefore widely used in general,  the prices for goods that people buy would be  fairly stable.  Otherwise, people will reject the currency. Perhaps more importantly, employers will not agree to pay workers in a currency that is appreciating in value, as this would require them to lower wages constantly, something workers will not accept.
The upshot is that inflation must ideally be between 0 and 4%.
In order for that to happen, the supply of money must grow at the same rate as the overall economy.   If the supply of money is constant, then the prices of goods will fall in a growing economy.  And the economy generally does grow.
Falling prices will cause people to delay purchases, and is symptomatic of lower demand in general.  This causes a depression.  The example of computers given by many respondents is wrong.  This is a case where new, higher quality models are replacing older models at the same price-point.  It would be correct if the overall amount of money spent on computers (new and old) declined, but this is not the case.
In the 1930s in Europe, abandonment of the gold standard was the key that allowed the European economies to grow again.  Those who held onto the gold standard longest suffered the most greatly.
It is just a fact that a fixed money supply in a growing economy is deflationary.  This will limit bitcoin to the same role that gold holds now.  It is a useful hedge against inflation, but not capable of replacing the more flexible fiat currency, because it cannot maintain price stability.
Comment: Also, imho our excessive consumerism is one of the prime reason our planet's natural resources are quickly declining. Delaying purchases is a good thing in my opinion: People will still buy things that they need, however, people would be more reluctant to buy shit they don't have immediate use for. That might hurt some product category and ultimately might change culture, but could be a great thing in many other ways.
Comment: Interesting answer, however, your answer assumes that wages and prices would be denominated in bitcoin. Some of the negative consequences of bitcoin's deflation would already be countered if contracts and prices would be denominated in local currencies, but payable in Bitcoin.
Comment: You can still be paid in bitcoin, even when the value is denominated in another currency. Just set up your contract such that "Salary is $X payable to bank account Y or as equivalent number of Bitcoins calculated with the pay-day's current spot-price from source Z to Bitcoin address Q".
Comment: My point is merely that wages and probably prices for staples, cannot be denominated in bitcoin.  This will limit the scope of bitcoin's use and relegate it to a niche.
Comment: @HaroldNaparst I updated my answer with responses to yours. If we had a stable currency, all of your arguments would equally well work against the dollar. Yet people accept it just fine.
Comment: @Gracchus.  In order to maintain price stability, Central banks add or remove money from the system in times of less or greater economic activity, exactly as you suggest.  This flexibility is the great strength and rationale for fiat currency.
Answer: One has to distinguish between three different sources of deflation. Based on the famous quantity equation there are three possible scenarios how a deflation can happen.
M * V = Y * P
M= Money Supply;
V= Money Velocity;
Y= Output/Production/Real GDP;
P= Price Level
Deflation is commonly defined as a decrease in overall price level (e.g. P goes down).
So there are 3 ways this can happen:
M decreases: So called Debt Deflation. This is a huge problem for banks and that is what most economists fear. Obviously this cannot happen to Bitcoin because M is fixed. (Except for lost wallets).
Y increases: This would be economiv growth due to an increase in productivity. Since that is a good thing there is no problem here.
V decreases: This means that people hoard their money and dont spend it. Usually this happens in times of high economic uncertainty. When you are unsure wether you will get income next month you will save a little bit more. This could become a problem in a bitcoin economy if that money is just asleep in peoples wallets.
Comment: Doesn't this assume that bitcoin is ONLY currency in use? Bitcoin's V decreasing is not a problem in an economy with multiple currencies.
Answer: The value of bitcoin is roughly proportional to the size of the bitcoin economy, since bitcoin has a fixed supply. This means that for the value of bitcoin to go up (deflation), the bitcoin economy must be experiencing growth. How can growth kill an economy?
The deflation spiral theory is self contradicting, at least in the case of bitcoin. In the case of the fractionally reserved fiat paper banking system that our governments impose on us, it's a little different.
Answer: Bitcoin was modeled after a non-renewable resource extraction curve similar to gold, silver, and oil. Gold and silver have be used throughout history as an effective currency. To say that it would fail due to deflation, would be to say that gold/silver would have met the same fate.
Until the modern era, gold and silver was the main form of money used throughout the world. People did carry it around with them and spend it freely to acquire goods and services.
If someone says to you that deflation will kill bitcoin, tell them to show how gold/silver didn't work for spans of time up to a millennia.
Comment: Wait a minute... what do you mean with "non-renewable"? Isn't bitcoin an endless resource (unlike gold or silver)?
Comment: Well, it is a diminishing in output (less bitcoins produced over time). They are not an endless resource, there will only be at most 21M of them, and there will be less over time as they are lost.
Comment: But the value of the coins change accordingly, right? So at most, we will have less granularity, but just as much capacity to represent money, correct?
Answer: Understanding bitcoin price behavior with the Quantity theory of money
<code>M · V = P · Q
</code>
Money supply times the Velocity of money equals the Price level times the Quantity of goods.
Several arguments against the success of Bitcoin are doing the round:

Bitcoin is a bubble, the present $1000+ price level bears no relation to the small bitcoin economy.
People are hoarding bitcoin and not using it. How can that possibly be a successful currency?
Bitcoin has a deflation problem. The general price level would have to keep falling to accommodate the growing bitcoin economy, given the fixed supply of bitcoin. (And somehow predictable deflation is assumed to be a bad thing.)

People could use this theory to 'prove' that when the money supply M is fixed and the economy Q grows, the price level P must drop to accommodate it, which would mean deflation.

But then you are falsely assuming V, the velocity of money, to be
  constant.

What happens when people expect a drop in price level P? They will postpone spending. You know your bitcoins will be worth more tomorrow, so there is a free profit to be had. This drop in spending now would mean there is less bitcoin chasing after goods today. People are hoarding bitcoin. Price levels in bitcoin will adjust, going down today. Saying that the price level in bitcoin goes down, is the same as saying the value of a bitcoin goes up.
This hoarding will continue until the expected change in price level does not provide a free lunch anymore. In a bitcoin economy with a fixed money supply it can't be the Price level adjusting to the growing economy. It is the amount of bitcoin used in spending, or the Velocity of money.
People will hold on to their bitcoin at first. The bitcoin value should be expected to climb rapidly and stabilize.

So what the Quantity theory of money shows us is:

The price of a bitcoin should be expected to move now, to a level fitting the size of the future bitcoin economy. Assuming bitcoin adoption, the $1000+ price is rational given the low market capitalization compared to that needed in a reasonably sized future bitcoin economy.
Bitcoin hoarding is normal. The velocity of bitcoin will be higher tomorrow than it is today. Bitcoin hoarding is a logical consequence of the expected growth in the bitcoin economy in combination with the limited supply of bitcoin. It is rational and here to stay for the foreseeable future.
There will be no constant deflation. The price level, or the value of a bitcoin, will jump to a level that fits the expected size of the future bitcoin economy. It is the velocity of money, or the number of bitcoin actually used in spending, that will adjust to the growing economy, not the price level.

Deflation:
Because the monetary base of bitcoins cannot be expanded, the currency would be subject to severe deflation if it becomes widely used. Keynesian economists argue that deflation is bad for an economy because it incentivises individuals and businesses to save money rather than invest in businesses and create jobs. The Austrian school of thought counters this criticism, claiming that as deflation occurs in all stages of production, entrepreneurs who invest benefit from it. As a result, profit ratios tend to stay the same and only their magnitudes change. In other words, in a deflationary environment, goods and services decrease in price, but at the same time the cost for the production of these goods and services tend to decrease proportionally, effectively not affecting profits. Price deflation encourages an increase in hoarding — hence savings — which in turn tends to lower interest rates and increase the incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in projects of longer term.
Source
Comment: @ Gracchus Agreed. The only way to fix this global monetary problem is to replace our debt-based money system with a debt-free money system. Under a debt-free money system, all new money would be spent into circulation interest-free instead of loaned into circulation at interest. This is just common sense. If the government can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. Both have the same backing. The only difference is that one bears interest, the other does not; one serves the banking elite, the other serves the general public.
Answer: It's been a long time since my Econ101 class but let's see if I can get this right...
Deflation of the currency is only an issue in two circumstances, neither of which currently apply to bitcoin.

Deflation harms individuals who have large debts in the deflating currency, especially those with fixed payments. If the value of one dollar doubles tomorrow then a $1,000 mortgage payment suddenly seems quite a lot to pay for a property that was entirely worth that sum not long ago.
Deflation harms individuals when the lag time between the deflation and price changes is substantial or when companies hold large amounts of stocks purchased at pre-inflation prices and are unwilling to sell at a "loss" even though the money is now worth more.

To my knowledge, no one is making or taking out substantial loans denominated in BTC with fixed payment plans, though that may soon change. There are also many discussions on the forums and elsewhere regarding how loans denominated in BTC might be made more feasible in a deflationary system.
As for #2, there are few (if any) companies who hold stock purchased with BTC and sell at fixed BTC prices. Almost all companies have stock purchased with fiat currency and their pricing is automatically updated at the time of sale to reflect a fiat value, so they do not face the "selling at a 'loss'" scenario.
Comment: Not at all, it simply means that we have to come up with different debt models than are traditionally used, like reverse interest. These both also become smaller and smaller issues as volatility continues to decrease.
Answer: "Every man has his price."
Sooner or later, you're going to find something priced in BTC that you want or need. And you'll want or need it "now." Consider the situation when buying a computer: they are always going down in price. By the deflationista's argument, nobody would be buying electronics. Ever. If a faster computer is going to be cheaper next week, then I won't buy one this week. Same thing for next month. And next year. Forever...
Except it misses one important point: computers are useful, and sooner or later a buyer's price (the tradeoff between the computer's usefulness and future computer purchasing power of money) will be met.
The "deflation" argument falls down with this one simple example.
Comment: Welcome to the Bitcoin Stack Exchange!  Answers that mostly repeat the content of other answers are discouraged here.  Unlike in a forum, you shouldn't answer unless you have something significant to add that has been missed.  Just don't want you to be discouraged if this answer is downvoted!
Comment: "If a faster computer is going to be cheaper next week, then I won't buy one this week. Same thing for next month. And next year. Forever..." This fact is already true with dollars -> nobody buys any computer -> I cannot be writting this answer!
Comment: They can buy computers with dollars. And buying only what you need doesn't result in the same growth as buying what you want.
Answer: If people don't spend bitcoin, then miners will not collect fees. And without fees, there's no incentive to mine.   So miners will drop off.  As miners drop off, the network becomes vulnerable to a 51% attack.  So, yes, severe deflation is a major problem, but not solely for the economic reasons people are concerned about.   Far before deflation is a concern, lack of transaction volume and a decreasing money supply will kill bitcoin unless the monetary supply is loosened.  I'm guessing miners will feel the pinch and many will start dropping off by year-end 2014.
Fortunately there are many solutions.   The Bitcoin money supply can be easily changed by a majority of miners agreeing to a change.
Comment: This answer seems to disregard that transaction fees are only about 1/100 of the mining rewards, most (more than 98%) is provided by the block reward, instead. The block reward is currently 25BTC, and will be 12.5BTC for approx. 4 years thereafter. That should provide ample reason for people to mine well beyond 2014.
Answer: Unsure, can't tell at this stage if deflation will be negative, positive, or neutral. Nothing quit like bitcoin has existed before to compare it against.
For traditional currencies, deflation is a bad thing as deflation was present during most economic depressions in US history. Historically, deflationary currency equates, more often than not, to massive poverty.
The argument against this is that bitcoin is a commodity currency: (such as gold)

A commodity currency is a name given to currencies of countries which depend heavily on the export of certain raw materials for income. These countries are typically developing countries.

Bitcoin sounds a lot more like fiat money than commodity currency though. Especially in light that bitcoins don't "exist" in the physical world in the same way commodity currency does. Bitcoins do exist in on-line spaces and exchanges in much the same was fiat money does.
But even if we say bitcoin is a commodity currency there is still the problem of it being unstable and, as a result, untrust-worthy. Developing countries whose economy is heavily dependance on commodity currency don't have the best track record of stability. A developed country example is the Iraqi "Swiss" dinar which went through deflationary trends - but didn't have long term use.
The counter argument seems pretty bad: diversify your investments. While being obviously good advice, it comes across as giving up on the system as a whole. "Who cares if Bitcoin fails, you should have other investments and will be fine."
Despite the uncertainty of long-term deflation, one of the best things about this currency is its reliance on mathematical models. If/when deflation is causing horrendous problems, I am confidant the mathematical model will be adjusted for the benefit of all.
Only time will tell, after all, Bitcoin is still experimental.
Answer: People here saying that deflation is only a problem with debt based currencies are wrong.
Inflation is needed not just because of debt, but because of the growing population. With more people, come more goods being produced and consumed. If we elected to create a 1:1 economy, eventually the dollar would start deflating. This would be unavoidable unless the economy and the population never grew. We know that's not going to happen, so we need more currency to compensate for those extra bodies.
We also need it for debt, yes, but debt is just the lubricant, not the engine.
And even if you disagree with that, and you think that debt is the only reason for inflation, what makes you think that if bitcoin were to become a pervasively used currency, that people would not create debt instruments with it? They've already created a multitude of other typical financial instruments based on its value. The only reason why it's not a debt based currency is because we have not yet chosen to use it to create debt instruments. But if/when humans decide to establish bitcoin as an acceptable form of transaction, they will use it for debt, sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. And it is at that point, that people will see this inherent flaw and it will come crashing to the ground.
This does not apply to all cryptocurrencies, and it is reasonable to suspect that others will succeed where bitcoin fails because they will allow for an infinitely increasing creation of units.
Comment: Hi Bjc7227, thank you for adding a dissenting answer to the discourse. I've noticed that your answer seems to mostly respond to other answers. Please note that Stack Exchange is not a forum, we try to find the best answer for each question. As such, an answer must be able to stand by itself and independently address the topic provided in the question post, even if it does include some commentary on other answers.
Comment: We also require our users to adhere to our [code of conduct](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/conduct#unfriendly-language).
Comment: In case it wasn't clear, I thought that your answer is useful, but it could be improved by addressing the topic at hand explicitly which was what effect the deflationary nature of Bitcoin would have on the project's outcome.

Will deflation destroy Bitcoin?


Word for survival probability between ages

Question: What is the term for the odds of someone dying by a given age if they are already some age?
For example, the odds of them living to 100 if they are currently 90, or the odds of living to 60 if they are currently 10.
Answer: The term death probability is used to reflect the odds of dying within one year of a given age.
Since you are talking about odds of dying over a multi-year period, it could be called cumulative death probability as in

The cumulative death probability of a 90 year old living to 100 is x.

I am unclear as to how this would be calculated. It is not simply the sum of the individual yearly probabilities.
The odds of living for that period could be called the longevity probability or the survival probability.
Answer: In Life Tables (also called Actuarial Tables, though that could apply to other tables of probabilities which have a similar accumulative effect; e.g. just as our chances of living a year affect our chances of living two, so does cumulative interest earned one year affect that earned the next), they are referred to just as "probability of dying" (or contrarily, they may talk of the "probability of surviving") in various cases, including:

Probability of dying between the age of 90 and 100.

E.g. Irish Life Tables from an Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh and Intenational Life Tables from the WHO
Answer: Just plain life expectancy is also used in this context. For example, US tax regulations [see Appendix C] require you to make a taxable withdrawal ("required minimum distribution") from a retirement account based on your life expectancy recalculated each year. Obviously, you may outlive the government's original estimate, but you will not have been required to exhaust your assets.
(Disclaimer: This is not tax advice.)
Comment: That though is a different figure.
Answer: I think the most common way to talk about this is to say "life expectancy at x". For example, "life expectancy at 70 is 80", meaning that the average person who is currently 70 will live to be 80. Sometimes for clarity people will add "age", i.e. "life expectancy at age 70 is 80".
This isn't exactly what your question asks for, not sure if it helps.