Does Google really forget information that has been deleted?

Question: I had this case where I wanted to move articles from Blogger website to hosted Wordpress. As I can't make 301 redirects, I simply deleted the selected articles and scheduled to be published after 1 month.
My question is does Google will really forget about those articles, so when they are published once again, they are indexed by the search engine?
Should I make that period longer than 1 month?
Comment: Does an elephant forget?
Answer: You said you can't create redirects. But can you edit the  part of your content? If so, send Google to the newly hosted documents with:
<link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/" />

Rank kept, Google told quickly... It's a win-win.
Answer: I would not worry too much. Often people are concerned that Google will penalize them for stuff that they should be able to do. You are fine.
Google will figure things out okay. In fact, I am not not sure I would wait as much as a month, but if you want to be cautious, a month should be a good period of time. I would make sure, if you can, to deliver a 410 Gone error as opposed to a 404 Not Found error. This should clear out Google's index faster. Otherwise, Google will try to access your pages for a period until it finally drops your pages.
On the search site, there is no real memory effect. When your old pages are dropped from the index, Google does not keep old data in a data base.
What people do not realize is that there is a huge citation database that does somewhat remember things, not to penalize, but to follow citations and make appropriate linkage from page to page and site to site. In this respect, Google does remember things. But there is no overlap. The citation database is set up to give credit and not to penalize. Here Google will realize that your pages moved from one site to another and if there are any citations, or citations that you are not aware of, they will likely be adjusted.
Comment: Anytime. I find that people worry about what Google thinks too much. I know there are valid criticisms sometimes, but Google really does want to do a proper and effective job which often means doing things the way people expect them to be done.
Comment: Much obliege, closetnoc. Very good explanation. I always though that it shouldn't be a issue, but it is always better to be sure, than just to believe that. Once again- thanks!


Easiest way to bread chicken for frying?

Question: I usually toss the flour and chicken in a bag and shake it up. The problem is that pieces of chicken will often stick together and not get evenly coated. Is there an effective way to bread my chicken evenly without getting clumps of chicken?
Comment: related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/30113/67
Answer: One piece at a time? Into the bag, shake to coat, out of the bag, shake to remove excess flour, put aside for subsequent egg-washing and breading once all pieces are done.
Also helps to have one hand only touching dry ingredients, the other only wet.
Answer: I dump the chicken in a large plastic container and (as ferronrsmith) sieve the flour on top of the chicken. Then, I put the lid on and give it a good shake.
It helps if the chicken is dry. (Dried with paper towels after washing.)
Comment: Another meat-washer! Why?!
Comment: @ElendilTheTall, excellent question! I do it to get rid of excess blood, basically.
Answer: I don't use the bag method to bread chicken, or other foods.  I prefer the slightly more manual, but very effective traditional method:

Put the breading mix (for example, seasoned flour) into a shallow dish, such as a pie plate or a shallow casserole
Place one or several (as many as comfortably fit) pieces of chicken into the breading mix, then turn them over and place back down.   You might need to do the sides too, for large pieces.  You can pick up some mix with your fingers and put it onto any uncovered spots, too.
When you remove the chicken, shake it slightly above the mix to let extra come off and be reusable.

This method is also extensible to more complicate breading techniques such as flour, then egg wash, then breadcrumbs.  You simply have three pie plates, one for each layer in the breading, and move the foods through the layers.
If you are doing this sort of dry/wet/dry breading, it helps to use one hand only for the dry stages, and the other hand (or tongs) for the wet stage.
In comparison to the bag method, this technique has the following advantages:

You can directly control and monitor the breading on each piece of food
No reasonable way for the pieces to stick together during the breading process
It scales up to any amount of food easily in an assembly line
You can do multiple layers, including wet layers, conveniently
There is no danger of a bag splitting and and getting flour all over the kitchen

... and the following disadvantages:

For the small quantities of food, it may be a little more work
The pie plates have to be washed, whereas the bag can probably be discarded
Your hand(s) get mucky unless you use tongs at every stage

Note: this answer assumes small quantities, as in home cooking.  Restaurant production also uses this method, but scaled up in a couple of ways.  I have never heard of nor seen a commercial kitchen use the bag method.  Now, at industrial scales, they have some cool devices.... :-)
Answer: You can use a sieve :). That's what I always do and it is always evenly coated with flour. The bag create lumps, try to avoid that if you can. try sifting the flour also :)
Comment: It might be helpful to the OP if you were a little more specific about what using a sieve means - I can think of variations people might try.
Comment: I am puzzled by your last sentence... do you also sift the chicken? :D
Comment: Sifting is the process of using a sieve to remove lumps and to filter large particles. An example of the sifting process is here : http://mayblerose.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sponge-cake-sift-flour.jpg
Comment: "sift the flour" was already reasonably clear, though not to everyone - but "use a sieve" definitely still isn't.
Comment: So basically you'd place the flour in the sieve and as u sift the flour with the chicken under the coat of flour will be added. Keep repeating this process until you have covered the entire chicken. If you want to apply other bases (like oats, makes some egg batter the dip it, then dip it in bowl of oats... i like that)
Answer: If you're going to use the bag method, you may want to use a clear plastic bag, and only drop in between 1 and 3 items at a time (exact number depends on the size of the items relative to the size of the bag).
If you do end up getting two items stuck together, just grab one of the items through the bag,  and shake until the other item falls away.
If you're still having problems, set up a regular breading station
Answer: It helps to sift the flour. I use a colander for breading. I just did this with pickles and then again with chunks of chicken and it works great, just make sure there is a pan under the colander when you are breading. Put whatever you are breading in plastic bag first, shake it up, don't use a lot of flour, dump into the colander, shake it up and bam, no mess no fuss.
Comment: The OP specifically said the problem is in coating the chicken in the bag, not afterward.
Comment: I've edited your answer to remove the things that were meant to be comments on ferronrsmith's answer (rude ones, too). Also, at least in the US, colanders are usually a bowl with decent-sized holes in it while sieves are metal mesh, and generally finer.


How can users have confidence that there are no backdoors in paper wallet generators?

Question: I'm thinking of issues like the randomization not being truly random. I appreciate that some users could examine the code themselves, but what assurances do less technically skilled users have?
Answer: There's really no way for a nontechnical user to know. In fact, most technical users do not have the specific technical knowledge required to evaluate cryptographic code (including the random number generator). Therefore, it comes down to a matter of trust. If the user does not directly trust the software author, they may sufficiently trust somebody else who has evaluated the technical aspects of the software.
Comment: I don't know of any formal scheme for publishing peer reviews, particularly for, shall we say, the wild west of cryptocurrency software.
Comment: Yes, there are formal ways for review and validation of cryptographic code. However, like just about everything involving formal, legal, multi-party assurance, there are such vast costs, delays, etc. involved that sometimes one wonders if the result, despite best intentions all around, is living with solutions that perpetuate old problems. For an extreme, see [OpenSSL's FIPS validation notes](http://www.openssl.org/docs/fips/fipsnotes.html). There is a FIPS validated module (what the US gov wants to address your worries for gov use), which prevents it from cheaply being improved.
Comment: Thanks! Is there any formal or quasi-formal system of 'peer review' for code of this sort? Or places where people put their testimonials about having reviewed code?
Answer: This is a time when very rapidly, people like you and me (Luddites in a highly Technical, complex virtual environment) are either going to swim or ... do something else less uplifting...
Having played 3+million hands of internet poker in my career, I do however know 1 or 0 things about RNG's; trust spread over a large, human net, cast upon the backdrop of the Internet - - - Trust no one, trust nothing, kill first and kill last. It is just that kind of world in the real, it's only natural these aggressive attempts to deceive and defraud other humans pervades the virtual realm as well.
Yes, there is a well-known repository of Peer Reviewed code. It can be found at www.github.org. It's free, it's open, and it's everyone's for the pilfering, plagiarizing, pluralizing and profiteering. It's also just vastly interesting, even more incomprehensible.
The cut dry answer to your question is: One should NOT trust Paper Wallet Generator services because services like this are centralized, often closed systems that commonly operate contingent upon a for-profit business model. You have immediately given incentive to the bad actors that would hack your Bitcoin Protocol, realized in it's truest form - A Trust-less Digital Currency, store of value, and pioneer of transparency in a proprietary world.
Bitcoin's most essential virtue is precisely this notion of requiring, unlike all previous systems introduced to the human race, a purely open-source technology. Meaning even an idiot like I could tinker with the deepest layers of coding in the protocol, if I so desired, if I so deemed it pertinent to my wallets security, or to satisfy my curiosity. It is, in it's highest form, a purely P2P, distributed network of individuals, self-governing their every transaction. It is very unfortunate indeed that we continue to see the growing trend where would be cryptographers counterfeit the gift of Satoshi by relinquishing trust to centralized, closed third parties that have every mal/ability to coffer their coin.
You have no assurance other than your best knowledge. To the best of your knowledge, you would never willingly hand your money, your trust, over to a faceless, inhuman, fallible Paper Wallet Generator Service - one that is susceptible to various forms of attack from within, and without. You would much rather understand your world, your finances and your future, and place all of your trust in yourself. THAT is what bitcoin is all about.
It's a sad reality but it's an exquisite solution, so I recommend you rethink who and why you entrust your wallets security. The pinnacle of cryptography, of bitcoin, is a system that requires you to know your code. I mean honor, I mean integrity, not necessarily that of the intractable, deep math encoding the client, either. Especially prescient is that knowledge that, if you don't trust yourself with your own paper wallets randomization, you can only trust that given sufficient time, every hack will be realized. Without hands on security measures put in place by the capable individual, infinite time*computer integrity = 100% failure.
Comment: Great answer. I will do some more reading
Comment: I'm very glad it was of use to you. Best of luck


What is the difference between "I forgot" and "I had forgot"?

Question: I forgot versus I had forgot. What is the difference between the two phrases?
Answer: "I forgot" is the simple past, expressing an action which took place once.
"I had forgotten" is is the simple past perfect, used to express an action taking place before a certain time in the past. This tense emphasizes what happened, not the duration thereof.
"I had forgot" is generally considered bad grammar, at least in my part of the US, because the correct past participle of "forgot" is "forgotten".
See http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/tenses for examples of all English tenses.
Comment: But have gotten and have got have completely different meanings in American English.
Comment: @kiamlaluno: there are regional variations; in British English, the past participles of "to forget" and "to get" are "forgotten" and "got" only.
Comment: The past particle can be both _forgotten_ or _forgot_, in the same way the past participle of _to get_ is _gotten_ or _got_ (_New Oxford American Dictionary_).
Answer: First off, "it's" Incorrect as "it" is. The latter sentences has not been phrased correctly. The latter sentence should have been "I had forgotten" if you like.
Stepping from there, we should be able to disseminate the difference quite naturally: The difference is essentially emphatic over the Nature of "what" happened, rather than "when." This "nature" is distinctively, Simple Past in the former -the expression of which is being narrated as the event (forgetting) happening "once"- and Simple Past Perfect in the latter -the expression of which is being narrated as the event (forgetting) happening "before a specific period in the past".
Answer: The original British English uses "forgot" and "got", not the US derivation "forgotten" and "gotten".
Read Agatha Christie's Murder On The Orient Express to see how she uses "gotten" to give the American character her "voice".


What is a good line against the King's Indian Defense for blitz play?

Question: I am looking for a line as White against the King's Indian Defense to play in blitz.  With the short time I find it hard to play the lines where White might be winning on the queenside, but has to endure an attack on his king.  I've looked at the Smyslov line, but I don't understand what White is trying to do there.  I would consider pure English type lines or Reti if there is a good recommendation.
Answer: I think a good way of preventing Black's kingside play is the Makogonov (or Makagonov) variation:
<code>[fen ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3
</code>
This is more strategical than tactical, and most of the times prevents Black's ..f5 by playing g4 with White! Not to attack, but to restrain.
After 5..0-0 you can choose:

either a setup with 6.Nf3,
or first develop the queen's bishop (6.Bg5), keeping the option open of playing Nf3 or Nge2.

For the first setup, reply all games played by Chessexplained, he has a tremendous score with this variation, explaining plans while playing: https://www.youtube.com/user/Chessexplained/search?query=makogonov. I especially liked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqNBR4wejCU (playing on two wings),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0tTOOhb6A (explaining some theoretical ideas) and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJk-NejbiHQ.

For the second, more flexible, setup, read John Watson's "A strategic opening repertoire for White".
Good luck!
Answer: In general there is no easy way around the King's Indian: it is a highly theoretical opening that players must know how to play against.

With the short time I find it hard to play the lines where White might be winning on the queenside, but has too endure an attack on his king

Well, if you know the opening lines well enough it really makes no difference what the time control is, as in any case the first 10-15 moves are (somehow) forced. This said, the standard main-main line (Mar de la Plata variation) for White against the King's Indian is indeed an attack against Black's Queen side (especially against c5 or by playing Be3-Nb5 pointing at a7) where White tries to move the focus elsewhere to counterattack what Black is carrying out on the King's side: in this respect the plan is conceptually easy, in the sense that especially in a blitz game you already know where your pieces go and what they must attack without having to actually think of a plan.
However:

I've looked at the Smyslov line, but I don't understand what White is trying to do there

the Smyslov line is indeed one way to play it without all the hassle that the main line involves: White tries to make ...e5 somewhat more difficult (by pinning the f6 Knight) and to avoid the standard maneuver Ne8-f5 (as the Knight is pinned on the Queen). As such, Black usually tries to un-pin with h6-g5 and in that case it is White to start carrying an attack on the King's side against the prematurely exposed g-h pawns of Black's; the play anyway is to be studied line by line (do not take the above as a general recipe).
Another attempt may be the Panno variation (fianchetto variation), where the structure g3-Bg2 makes it more difficult for Black to break open the King's side checkmating the White King very fast. There is a didactic video here that may give you a taste thereof (but there is a lot of free GM content elsewhere too).
Comment: There are a lot of choices against g3-Bg2 besides the Panno, but I appreciate the link to the video.
Answer: You could try to take a look at the Exchange Variation. I have used it a few times in blitz and tournaments. It's easy to pick up and involves a few complications in the opening that if Black is not familiar with, may cause them to use up precious time.  Plus, it has the psychological advantage that most KID players are looking for a complex fight and this makes them play a very different kind of game, as it involves an early Queen exchange.
Granted, you have to like those kind of positions!
Answer: An effective blitz approach is to play the 150 Attack / Barry Attack.
This means not playing c4 on move 2. Instead play Bf4 then Nc3 and play the 150 (e4, Qd2, 0-0-0, Bh6, h4, h5, in some order followed by checkmate) in the case black doesn't play d5. In the case black does play d5 then play the Barry Attack with moves like e3, h4, etc. again with the idea of blasting open the h file and checkmating black's castled king.
This is a crude attempt to take black away from standard KID lines and blow him out of the water if he doesn't know what he is doing and just plays stereotypical KID moves, perfect for blitz if you do some preparation first.
Answer: I merely depends on what kind of a blitz player you are. If your main point is to avoid learning complicated opening lines, you can try and play schemes with g3, e.g. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 d6 [you would also need to have an idea how to play against 4...d5] 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 etc.
There is a lot of theory in these variations, but it is more dispendable than in the main lines. Thanks to your kingside fianchetto you are not in danger of a direct kingside attack, so it is much easier to naviguate with general concepts (fight for the center!) and without specific knowledge.


How to Connect Firewire Camcorder to Laptop without firewire port

Question: I Have a Sony Camcorder w/ a 4-pin firewire output. I have HP laptop I want to use it with, but the laptop, does not have a firewire port, just VGA, HDMI, USB, ESATA, Ethernet, and Modem. In addition, It doesn't have a PC Card slot for adding a Firewire card. Googling for "Firewire to USB adapter" returns a lot of hits, but no product that seems to do what I want. I assume I need a USB dongle that gives a firewire port and has drivers so that the PC sees it as a regular firewire port. Thanks for any recommendations
Answer: I had the same problem last year trying to connect a firewire camera to a laptop with no firewire. I tried searching for a firewire to USB converter (recognizing that such a device would be a protocol converter, not just physical adapter). Also looked for PCI to USB converter, thinking if there was such a thing, I might put a PCI firewire card in it.
Note though that if your laptop has a PCM-CIA slot (mine doesn't), you can get a firewire card to go in there. PCM-CIA slots are also called PC-card slots, and are where you would have put a wireless adapter on a laptop with no internal wireless circa 2003/04, before USB wireless dongles became more common. However, like firewire, PCM-CIA slots are also fading out of popularity on new laptops.
In the end I found nothing and had to just get my hands on another laptop that already had firewire. Pretty unsatisfactory answer, I know.
Answer: You're not likely to find anything that doesn't come in a really expensive box.  If you do have a desktop, your better off getting a PCI or PCI express card to at least get the video off the camcorder.  USB and Firewire use completely different protocols, not to mention clock speeds and voltages.


Car loan finance question

Question: My mother asked for me to sign for her a car as a co-signer. I spoke to the dealership finance rep to confirm price and payment information. My mother was at the dealership I was not I was at home in a completely different town. The dealership asked for me to email my if and confirmed payment amounts with me on the phone. 4 days later the dealership mailed me the contract agreement papers. Looking st the contract they lied they have me as purchaser and my mother as co-signer, the car is coming up to 40,000 more than what was told to me, and they also have the incorrect credit score. I signed the papers not realizing what was on the deal I have now realized the scheme. I still have all the contract papers in front of me at home what should I do? I don't agree to any of this and don't want to send in this contract.
Comment: 40,000 more? Are you in the US? If not, what currency is this?
Comment: I hope you're aware that you're on the hook to make sure that this car gets paid for. If your mom defaults it's going to become your problem very quickly.
Comment: 40k more? Unless you are in a country where 1000 whatever unity buy you a burger - that is a LOT of additional. What you buy there? A Rolls Royce?
Comment: I assume this means 40,000 miles or km more .
Comment: YES I Still have the contract in my hand they have no papers no signature of me confirming this at all. So know that I know I won't be sending the contract back and I don't isn't not agree to this contract.
Answer: Don't send the contract back, obviously.
You can search this forum for those that cosigned loans and then regretted it later.  This is the same kind of thing.  Please shred and then burn those papers.
Inside you there is a grateful person looking to help your mom and that is commendable.  If your mom needs a car, and you are in a position to purchase one I would do so.  However, do it on your terms.  You pick out the car, you buy it in cash, and then give it to your mom.
Loans and messy cosigning schemes will only leave you with regrets, and might irrecoverable damage the relationship with your mother.  You don't want that, and she does not want that in the long run.  The desire to have this car might be clouding her judgement.
Do not send this contract back, nor have any lengthy discussions with this car dealership.  At most, send an email saying "no thanks", and that is all.
Of course talk to your mom as much as you wish but that you cannot do this car deal or even cosign a loan of any size.
Examples:
Borrower vs coborrower
Family who did not make the car payments as a cosigner
Answer: It doesn't matter too much if your purchaser or co-signer, either way you are fully responsible to pay the total amount, and you have no rights to the car (as your mother is on the title). Basically you give your mother an unsecured credit over the full amount, and she spent it.
If you can still get out, do it.
The internet (and stack-exchange) is full of stories of people that get in deep trouble for contracts like this, because the other party stops paying (voluntarily or involuntarily). Your credit score will crash down if she doesn't pay, before you even know anything about it. You will not be able to get a mortgage, rent a house, buy a car, etc; or you will pay much more (higher interest) for these things.
Comment: I'm on the title she's not

Car loan finance question


How would tiny dragons strike TERROR?

Question: Average Medieval times for humans... And everybody fears these fire-breathing, jewel-stealing sentient creatures. There is just one problem. Dragons on this world are sparrow-sized, and aren't very social creatures. (So I don't think they will form a massive dragon swarm anytime soon.) Due to their tiny size, they can't torch down cities and steal princesses and do other dragonish stuff. What can a lone tiny sentient dragon have as weapons to strike as much fear as the typical Smaug-sized one? Being both poisonous and venomous is an idea.
Comment: how do bees and spiders strike terror?
Comment: We're pretty afraid of murder hornets, and those are even smaller than your dragons.
Comment: Look up pictures of St. George and the Dragon.  In many of the older ones, the dragon in question is quite small, like maybe the size of an iguana.  In fact, it's likely that if there is any truth to the legend whatsoever, it probably *was* just an iguana or other similar lizard.  A rare sight in England at the time, but hardly threatening.  Legends get passed on, exaggerated, embellished, and centuries later, that iguana has wings, breathes fire, and is the size of a house.  That's just how legends work.
Comment: Tiny non-dragons seem to be striking terror quite well...
Comment: "Dragons on this world are sparrow sized, and aren't much of social creatures." but does the resident of that world know this fact as a common knowledge? or only certain people, heck even no one knows this fact?
Comment: This question reminds me a lot of Terry Pratchett's [swamp dragons](https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Swamp_dragon). Their internals are probably best described as being _very_ poorly made chemical factories for the production of flammable materials for fire breathing. Due to this, swamp dragons have a regrettable tendency to explode at the slightest provocation. In terms of character they're described as being quite lovable actually, but many of Pratchett's characters (including dragon breeders!) will only go near swamp dragons with full protective armour…
Comment: attack genitals ?!!  :O
Comment: Have you ever become acquainted with the Minnesota state bird (the mosquito)?
Comment: Fire ants are [the teensiest dragons](https://twitter.com/NewDadNotes/status/1125924527131779072) of our world...
Comment: tiny non-sentient spiders instill lots of fear, and just look at the hysteria over hornets in the USA recently
Comment: "Fire bats". terror intensifies.
Comment: Correction: The legend takes place in northern Africa (modern-day Libya), not England, and it's most likely the "dragon" was a crocodile (not an iguana, those are New World), which are not all that uncommon in that region at the time (crocodiles are known to live in the Nile delta, just to the east).  So slightly more threatening, but still not the winged, fire-breathing giants they became in later revisions.
Comment: You're asking why what is essentially a lightning fast, damned near uncatchable flamethrower with a mean temper could be scary, right?
Comment: A long time ago my girlfriend and I were at an old theater. There was a bat swooping around the theater, and she was so frightened of it we had to leave.
Comment: Have  you seen the original "How to Train Your Dragon" film?  While the Vikings in the society do give fear inspired names to all Dragons, so not the point, they do have a species of tiny dragon that are vicious in groups and even one was able to punch above it's weight class in the first film when introduced to the kids in training.   They're called "The Terrible Terrors".  In universe they are classified as "Stoker class" dragons, which are dragons that are known for the use of fire breath as their main form of attack.
Answer: Cities in the Middle Ages were flammable. Like, really flammable. London suffered from two devastating fires and several smaller ones before the Great Fire of 1666 that destroyed most of the inner city. Amsterdam suffered two massive fires in 1421 and 1452, the latter of which destroyed three-quarters of the city. Lubeck in Germany burned to the ground three times in the space of 120 years.
A dragon doesn't need to be dragon-sized in order to burn a medieval city to the ground. In fact, a sparrow-sized dragon would be able to flit around starting fires potentially without being seen, and definitely without being caught, unless someone nearby happens to have a (non-flammable) net or prodigious archery skills. No shotguns in the Middle Ages!
Once those initial fires grow and combine into larger fires, it's already too late for a medieval society to do anything about it. Anything that's not made of stone, or sufficiently protected by firebreaks, is going to burn. Your house. The granary. The cathedral. Everything.
So when someone in a medieval society sees a dragon flitting into town, they panic, because that means half the city is about to catch fire.
Comment: Let's put it this way: modern arsonists start devastating fires with lighters or matches. They don't need to break out flamethrowers. The only difference between the small dragon and a large dragon is that the small dragon takes slightly longer to get the inferno burning down the city to get going. Oh, and one more difference: the large dragon may be stymied by sufficiently strong stone buildings that it can't break into because it can't fit in the doors or windows. Something sparrow-sized on the other hand...
Comment: *Modern* houses are relatively flammable. A creature small enough that it's hard to keep away from dwellings, that likes to start fires (especially if it tends to do so at night, when the fire might not be noticed or found until it grows), would be a serious menace. For that matter, an *actual* sparrow, if it was aggressive, would be seriously annoying, though I suppose these days, people would get used to having the equipment on hand to 'handle' them...
Comment: @KeithMorrison : And a large dragon might be discovered before entering the city, and hunted down. If large dragons were a common occurrence, city walls would have ballista towers to shoot down any approaching dragon. But sparrow-sized dragons could enter undetected...
Comment: You know what's even worse than fire sparrows? [Boom rats](https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Boomrat).
Comment: ... not that an early shotgun would be terribly helpful - I wouldn't want to be handling "naked" (outside of a brass cartridge) gunpowder anywhere near one of these things.
Comment: I would like to give an honorable mentions to the swamp dragons of Discworld, who were treated sort of like a livestock and prone to exploding occasionally.
Comment: Although this does present the question: Why are people in this alternate universe building their houses out of wood? These dragons would appear to be sufficiently dangerous as to induce a response.
Comment: One, probably not. But imagine they flock like starlings, or swarm like locusts.
Comment: @BrianDrummond That was my first thought, but the question specifies that they're solitary creatures, or at least, don't form flocks or swarms. I think one would still be capable of causing a devastating fire, given that many such fires in history have started from something as small as a lantern or an unattended oven.
Comment: @KeithMorrison Even there though, whilst a modern arsonist or accident may take out a row of connected houses (or even a tower block; Grenfell for the obvious example), the fire does not usually jump to neighbouring houses.  Once houses mostly stopped being built with timber frames, fires generally became more localised and easier to control.  Cities with timber-framed houses though were prone to full-on firestorms.
Comment: I would expect the countermeasure for these dragons to consist of trained hawks, as they are already used to catching small, fast prey.
Comment: During WWII, US developed the Bat Bomb ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb ), where bats carried small incendiary bombs to set Japanese cities on fire. A sparrow is more-or-less the same size. The device was tested successfully, but was later cancelled because atomic bombs were finished faster. So yes, if a tiny dragon starts many fires, that could be effective even against WWII era Japan.
Comment: It seems to me that in a world of tiny fire dragons, people will generally build things to be tiny dragon-proof.  Stone in place of wood, well-secured granaries, and a fast fire department will be absolutely essential to get civilization underway.
Comment: See the curious project of the military [Bat Bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb). No, not the Adam West version...
Answer: just to add to the other answers: Tiny dragons setting an entire city on fire not only is realistic, we have something similar in our world too:
Let me introduce you to the Australian Firehawk Raptor

This little sh*t not only does start fires to force its prey to come out of hiding, they were HELPING spread the Australian bush fires.
So just replace feathers for scales, make them do their thing at night and now you have a little devil who may kill you and your family while you sleep and its so small that there isn't really much you can do to stop them
Comment: Freakin' Australia does it again... Good find!
Comment: @Ruadhan: My reaction exactly. Of _course_ it's got to be Australia...
Comment: I would have bet $100 that birds do not move fire.  I am very impressed.
Comment: "little devil who may kill you and your family" - for food.
Comment: mind==blown. This.... even for Australia, this is a new level of animal bad-assery.   I even checked the date on that article(Jan 10, 2018 )..nope, not april fools stuff.
Answer: I want you to meet: The Gimpy Dragon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrocnide_moroides
Like the Gimpy tree this tiny dragon grows hairs with neurotoxins in it that cause extreme pain for a few hours to days and then will keep hurting you to a lesser extend for months to years. And if you look at one of the names of this tree you can take a guess how much pain that is: the suicide tree.
Unlike the Gimpy tree these tiny dragons can get pissed and fly into your face. Since they arent social dragons they are likely very territorial, so one sparrow-sized dragon that will leave trails of neurotoxin hairs near its nesting area for unwary people to brush against or step on that will get angry at people that get too close to its nests and fly against you and start fires for good measure? That is some terror right there in any time period. I wouldnt even trust a Hazmat suit when dealing with such critters.
Comment: "is a plant common to rainforest areas in the north east of Australia" because OF COURSE it had to be from Australia.
Comment: This tiny plant is a real bundle of joy - thank you for introducing it to us.
Comment: the gimpy tree and firehawk are buddies
Answer: It is a fatal mistake to think that the bigger the organisms the more dangerous they are. It is actually quite the opposite, especially when organisms are very small or intelligent.
Consider bacteria or viruses that we can't get rid of. Consider most pests, such as rats or ticks.
The best we can do (and that is 21th century!) is limit them in a particular area for a while.
Now, dragons would be quite dangerous on their own, due to their small size, but add intelligence and they would quite literally own the humans. If they felt like it.
Assassinations (either by poisonous bites, or, if they aren't poisonous, by carrying it),  setting towns on fire as described in many answers, spying so they learn whatever humans are trying to organise to oppose them, herding animals into stampedes, for trampling or eating the corn, you name it and intelligent species will be the better at it the smaller and nimbler they are, compared to opposition.
Humanity's only hope is in the fact the creatures are not very social and there is some limit to the amount of control a small group of them can wield. Still, a city would be at mercy of a single one. Or burn down. Or have a famine. Or have an invasion of raiders at the precise time when it can't be repelled. Or have their well poisoned. The possibilities are endless. Fungal infections, breeding vermin in hiding places,... I haven't even started.
Seriously, I often have thought that the only reason ants don't rule the world is because they haven't got the intelligence for that. Yet.
Answer: Are psychic effects an option? You could make the tiny little guys have a cosmic-horror-style soul-piercing gaze that brings forth the darkest, most twisted fears of their targets. Or mind-control and a twisted tendency to play with it's victims by making them kill their families or something.
Alternatively, they might breathe a hallucinogenic gas that did something similar. (See Batman's Scarecrow). Poison-gas breathing dragons are more of a thing in real-world mythology than our standard fantasy canon would let on.
Finally, they might do some horrifying, insect-like skin penetration. Fly down someone's throat and burst out of their gut like a xenomorph? Lay eggs in your skin?
Comment: Or just straight up freaking scary. - Backed into a corner, I had a rat stand its ground (literally on its hind legs) to me and my two accomplished murder floofs. It screamed its head off and we all looked at each other and backed away. I built a ramp out of blankets for it to leave; thankfully it did.
Answer: Of course they can burn down cities.  Cities are made of wood.  All it takes is one puff of flame and everything can go up in smoke.  There is some reason to believe that Mrs. O'Leary's cow did not cause the Great Chicago Fire, but that springs from evidence not from any inherent implausibility in a kicked-over lantern causing all that death and destruction.
And as they are so small, they can wriggle anywhere to set their fires.
So basically you have an intelligent being that can kill hundreds of people and leave thousands of people destitute.  If it targets granaries, it can ensure that everyone starves.
The downside of their size is that if they actually want to weaponize it, they have to go and talk with people -- swooping in won't cut it -- and they may be vulnerable then.
Comment: Ahem. If they're actively malicious, clever enough to go for granaries/mills (and possibly suicidal)... they won't be setting things on fire. They'll be producing *huge explosions*. Grain dust isn't "flammable", it is quite literally [explosive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion), and it ignites relatively easily. Plus, yeah, no grain is going to make for bad times, even if the *rest* of the city doesn't burn to a cinder. Even in modern times, we've had plenty of *accidents*.
Comment: On further thought, they can *fly* (well, I assume so, OP didn't actually specify). They could light something on fire that will burn for a while and just *drop* it from a safe height. Or maybe even just light the outside of the building on fire and wait (from a safe distance!) for it to burn through. Heck, just dropping little burning things on random buildings (especially if they're thatched!) would be a teriffic menace, even if people can put out the fires quickly enough to keep them from spreading.
Comment: @Matthew And, in modern times, they wouldn't be dropping sticks on granaries, but on chemical plants. Chemical plant fire is, to put it mildly, one of the very few things interesting enough for the government to send an SMS to everyone downwind.
Comment: Yes, the dragons would have to arrange to lit the fire afar enough away to ensure they have get away time, but it does posit they are intelligent.
Comment: Oh, thank you @JohnDvorak, I did *not* need that mental image!
Comment: Medieval granaries stored un-milled grain because unmilled grain lasts much longer. It was only milled just prior to preparation as opposed to modern pre-milled flour.  So, medieval granaries were not significant explosion risks.
Answer: People are pretty terrified of:

snakes
scorpions
tarantulas
wasps

Which, I think, proves that size doesn't matter.  You have the size of the dragon in your head as part of what makes it terrifying, but those people don't (although they might have stories of huge dragons like we would of huge tarantulas).  You need to think of it like a scorpion or tarantula and maybe have a scene early on where someone is cornered by one, surprised by one dropping on them or coming on them from behind, maybe latching on to their neck and when they try to pull it off there are spines that cut their hands and cause searing pain.  You need to give the reader the ability to feel the fear.  The hair raising on their neck when they hear the sound of their wings.
You might want to read real life accounts of attacks by small things.  There's a (fictional) story by Dahl of a man that wakes up with a krait on his stomach under his bedcovers that might be of use.
Comment: Snakes and scorpions can kill you. Not sure about fear of tarantulas, that's probably not rational. The main issue with wasps is that the swarm, which the OP said dragons won't, but they're also a lot bigger than wasps. The major connecting factor here is that being attacked by these ranges from extremely painful to fatal. Dragon saliva causing a severe (possibly fatal) allergic reaction, especially if they don't even need to bite (and *especially* if they spit) would suffice.
Comment: People are pretty terrified of *the unknown*. Dragons with random breath weapons? You can count me out.
Answer: They spit a napalm-like substance (or Greek fire, if you prefer.) Sticky, somewhat gelatinous and burning at relatively high temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius or higher. Even small amounts could cause serious injury or death if it landed on the wrong part of the body. If it got onto a flammable material like wood, the fire could quickly get out of control.
If you wanted to take it to another level, have the substance automatically react with air so that even dousing it in water won't completely extinguish it. As soon as it is exposed to sufficient oxygen, it starts burning again.
Comment: Fulmar chicks in our world actually do spit a stinky, sticky, oily goo at potential predators (often described as "vomit", but actually something produced in a special gland). For predatory seabirds it is fatal; it glues the feathers and destroys the water-proofing. https://us.blastingnews.com/curiosities/2018/11/fulmars-chicks-the-foul-gull-baby-that-projectile-vomits-predatory-seabirds-to-death-002772769.html. Having dragons do this with something flammable, or even hypergolic, is not a big reach.
Comment: Take it to another level : They spit fire. Their guano is some kind of napalm.
Answer: It's as if you didn't spend any time in a tavern, lad. Otherwise, you would have heard plenty of stories by minstrels and all kind of travellers about all the nasty things dragons can do. They may seem small and harmless, but they will grow . There are also those that . Do you remember the Great Fire of Rome? That was caused by a dragon. The Sinking of Dongfang zhi Xing? That was also made by a dragon, angered because a merchant traveling there didn't give it a emerald it wanted. Not to mention that those evil dragons will grow to a hundred its size in order to eat you.
Just a couple of nights ago, a guy from Elbonia explained us how his second cousin once removed was once in a ship with another passenger, whose aunt was the maid of the governor of Belgrade at the time when an elephant sized dragon stole them the royal jewels, and left after setting the palace on fire.
You don't need your dragons to be big, evil, able to torch cities or steal princesses. Only that your widely believed folktales says so. Just hearsay will greatly exaggerate many trivial acts. But of course, your dragons being sentient, they could actually the source of many of those stories, as a way to protect themselves with such reputation (e.g. everyone fears Pirate Roberts).
Answer: The Dragons Hibernate in Unlikely Places and are Hard to Find
The little buggers are problematic enough to a man in broad daylight, but they will go to sleep for variable times in many hiding spots.  They fly for a time, undetected, then go to sleep in another.  This means that even in civilized places, you may find yourself face-to-face with something that can melt your face off in seconds, that you can't reliably find, you can't easily fight.
Latrines, granaries, temples, boots left open, library shelves, underneath bread ovens, wherever would be the least convenient place to find a fire-breathing thing suddenly fly out, screeching and clawing for your eyes, that's where dragons go.  It's hard for a person to sleep well when the whole of the environment around them could suddenly have a terror in it, and tomorrow night there will be a different set of places.
Answer: Make the beasts look like spiders.

Source for the image above: https://www.reddit.com/r/Sculpture/comments/eqtld5/self_dragonspider_dont_ask_how_it_happened/
I would totally freak out and scream like a little child if I saw something like that.
Make it look like a [REDACTED] ROACH instead, and I swear that if one ever made it into my house, I would move OVERSEAS.
Comment: It is so cute though. People would probably die trying to pet it.
Comment: @AllirionX you can totally make it a pet, you just need to pick fire-resistant glass, enough spacing between your bundle of joy's prison and the table, backup bedding (they _will_ destroy it and then feel uncomfortable). For feeding, I'm thinking barbecue tongs might be appropriate, or a smaller version if the flame isn't too big... or just drop raw meat from above (or cooked meal, if you're fool enough to think you can train them to not breathe fire at you). They're not real spiders. They can handle dead food. And yes. They're adorable.
Answer: There is a story told in several different settings of armies catching birds from cities they besiege and attaching burning materials to the birds and setting them loose to go back to their homes in the cities and set fire to the thatched roofs of those homes.
I don't know if that was ever tried, but ancient and medieval buildings and communities containing them were so vulnerable to fire that different people thought of that strategy and told stories about it that I remember.
I have lived in Perkasie, Pennsylvania since 2015.  Two 12-year-old boys playing with matches and paper started a few tiny fires that grew and spread and burned down a few blocks of the Perkasie business district in the Great Perkasie Fire of June 26, 1988, causing millions of dollars in damage.  It was considered a miracle that nobody was killed by the fire.
https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1988-06-30-2623531-story.html1
Of course modern buildings usually have a lot more stone, brick, and concrete than most medieval buildings did, and Perkasie had a much better fire department than a medieval city or village, but many buildings were still consumed by the flames.
So small flying (?) dragons that can create small fires would still be feared by medievla people.
What if the small flying (?) dragons are venomous like adders or cobras or asps?  Medieval people were afraid of the local venomous snakes.  And they would be even more afraid if the local venomous snake had wings and could fly and might fly over and land right next to you, so that you might not notice them and step on them and get bitten.
If a large percentage of the people bitten by tiny flying dragons died, medieval people would always be looking around in fear to spot tiny flying dragons approaching.
A lot of modern people are afraid of flying stinging insects, even people who aren't very sensitive to their stings and aren't in much danger of dying from a sting.  If a higher percentage of flying dragon bites were fatal, they would be feared a lot more than flying stinging insects.
A lot of people react with extreme fear to bats flying around, even though bats are mostly harmless.  I expect those people would react with much greater fear to tiny dragons flying around if those dragons could spit fire or had venomous bites.
Comment: The Mongols were besieging a city, and when it didn't look like they could win, they told the people that if they gave the token tribute of one pigeon from each household in the city, the Mongols would break the siege. They then attached burning embers to the birds who in a panic flew home to their roosts and burned the city to the ground.
Answer: Speed.
Hummingbird-like dragonets would be impossible to catch or stop. As soon as you spot one it has surrounded you with a ring of dozens of small (and rapidly-growing) fires and flitted away.
They can perch on arrows mid-air, zip through the narrowest opening in the blink of an eye, burn the clothes off your back as you try to swat them.
Just stay still and try not to aggravate them.
Answer: AUGH AUGH AUGH ANKLE BITERS. Personally, i jump and attempt to swat at anything that starts biting my ankles thanks to an unfortunate encounter with a cat a few year prior of this writing, and i would be pretty terrified of something that could set my ankles and also me on fire. not to mention that small dragons can usually go real fast and there would be close to no way to shoot them down.
Comment: *It's the little ones you have to worry about.*
Answer: Adapted from current headlines:
Dragons are like locusts.  They are usually solitary, but due to a mysterious mechanism (cough meddling wizards cough, maybe) every so often they swarm.  To densities of up to 80 million per square kilometer.  Sure, a single dragon can't burn down the village, but when there are literally taking up more space than there is land,

random puffs of fire will quickly burn down anything...
Of course, the crops don't fare well either.
Comment: Dragons are like cats with wings. And at *every* size under the square cube law which they exist in reality at, they are *the* most accomplished non-aquatic, non-avian, mammalian-hunters on the planet. - That's a *no* from me dawg, +1
Answer: You could use learned behavior to make something scary, even without giving it weapons.
For example, what if all the forest animals are afraid of small dragons? They start to flee or hide when they see one, or fall silent when one is near. This would make their presence ominous. Humans would copy this behavior.
But if it's all bark and no bite, people would eventually see through it. So I would suggest that regardless, they have a weapon of sorts. But it doesn't have to be a big one.
Answer: Think electric eels.  Now give them wings and make them hummingbird size and highly aggressive--if it sees/smells/hears you, it zips over and kills or stuns you with the shock.  Then it shocks anyone it encounters while escaping.  Sure, throw in poison and fire if it fits the plot, but if I had evolved in a world with fast, flying creatures that could zap me to death or unconsciousness, I'd be instinctively terrified if I locked eyes with one.
Answer: Eggy weggs.
What if they lay their eggs inside people. If they're sentient they could probably torture folks into doing whatever they desired, while slowly eating them from the inside.
Answer: Dragons are telepathic relays. If a dragon is near a group of humans then some of those humans will get random out-of-context fragments of what the others are thinking.
This is quite scary, because you never know when some thought you very much want to keep quiet is going to be broadcast to someone else, and there are lots of stories told about how an illicit thought at the wrong time led to disaster, possibly including lynching.
For instance, Joe Bloggs claimed that he got a thought from Pete Smith about murdering children, and Pete was subsequently lynched. Shortly after he stopped kicking several people got a thought from Joe about how he hoped they never found out it was a lie, so Joe got lynched too.
Answer: The same reason why people are afraid of non-venomous garden snakes: the dragons fed on our early ancestors!!! Think of it, when our mouse-sized ancestors poked their noses out of their dens, the venomous dragons were waiting for them. Since the dragons preyed on our early ancestors, the fear has become so deeply embedded in our bodies, that we are still afraid of them even though they don't eat us anymore!!! Also, consider the venom factor. People are scared of venomous creatures because the venom can kill them. Apparently, the dragon's venom can kill a person with a single bite, which is why people are afraid of them.
Answer: Make them mind-controlling parasites. The book series (not the movie series) of How to Train Your Dragon, by Cressida Cowell, has distinct subspecies of dragons that fall under the 'nanodragon' category. The vast majority of naondragons are based off insects.
These dragons would be the same way, but based off parasitic wasps (oh, and Xenomorphs). One of these sparrow-wasps will stealthily fly around until it finds what seems like a good target (isolated, not paying attention, preferably an outcast so no one realizes what happened to them) and then it will fly up to the back of their head, jab their stinger in, and implant an egg.
The egg will soon hatch, unleashing a worm. This worm will crawl in through the hole where the spinal cord goes in the skull to connect to the brain, and then it will pull an NPV (nucleopolyhedrosis virus) and liquefy itself, seeping into and taking control of the host's very brain.
Eventually this draconic infection will cause the human to gain enhanced strength, speed, claws, and fangs, which it will use to bite and spread the infection. Sort of a cross between a 28 Days Later zombie and a vampire. However, the first victim will become like Victor Validus in Ben 10: Alien Swarm: like the regular 'zombies,' but capable of spawning more sparrow-wasps, let's say from the mouth (Cressida Cowell's dragons have fire-holes, and it's hard to question the terror of someone opening their mouth wide, revealing a hole in the back of their throat that a sparrow-sized dragon-wasp of death emerges from).
Just one of these things will cause terror and chaos, so no swarm or even grouping required; just one sparrow-sized dragon-wasp and a blissfully unaware human being.
Answer:
Hard body.
Silent
Fast
Hot

(Some 900degreeC hot stone flying close to mach one an punching trough 50 wooden houses in 1 second may be a problem in a flammable city)
Answer: THEIR BITE MEANS DEATH
These dragons have a terrifying poison in their fangs, known as Medusa Venom due to the way it works. A tiny scratch from one of this dragon's teeth is enough to coax a lethal reaction in the healthiest, largest human.
But that isn't what makes it scary, or what gives it its namesake. You see, it's a poison that hijacks and spreads through the body, causing each muscle to spasm and then freeze in place as it locks it up. It's relatively slow-acting, taking up to 5 minutes to run its course, but there is no way to slow or stop it.
The end result is a poison that slowly and visibly spreads through the body, paralyzing each body part it affects. The poison starts with the muscles that allow for motion, then begins affecting the internal organs. Eventually, everything but the heart and lungs are paralyzed, leaving the victim trapped in their own body. If there is nobody nearby willing to do the merciful thing, then the victim is left to slowly die of thirst and starvation, as their body's mechanisms for processing food and water are paralyzed and nonfunctional.
Answer: Even Smaller Dragons
Warning: This answer is terrifying.

The only thing scarier than a small dragon is an even smaller dragon. The Sparrow-sized dragons have larvae the size of a grain of rice. These larvae like to mature inside a living host. In particular they fly up the urethra -- drawn by their instinctual love of gems and the possibility of kidney stones up there -- where they attach themselves to the bladder wall and start sucking blood.  Three months later the adult dragons eat their way out.
Answer: Your Dragons are Honey Badgers - they don't care
So, dragons can light fires, but nothing to take down a city or town. Sure they could build up over time, but people can fight back against them and force the dragons to flee.
Or can they?
Not if your dragons are pretty fearless - aggressive sparrows are tough to deal with if they won't back down.
Couple of things a Sparrow Dragon has with a Honey Badger:

Dragons traditionally have very tough scales much like the tough skin of a Honey Badger, so they likely are hard to bite into, or through;
As a result of that, they generally aren't likely to be affected by poisons;
They'll eat anything they come across;
They hibernate at times to avoid more common predators.

Things that Dragons often have that Honey Badgers don't?

They can fly. Good luck trying to get someone to hunt a Dragon as prey when that Honey Badger-like Dragon flies away with its prey - up their flfying ability a bit, and if they're flying away with a whole burned princess in their mouth...Yeah. Nobody's fighting that.
Dragon's have fire breath - to Honey Badgers' stink gas, that's actually much more likely to prevent other predators from doing the "Stealing the animals the Honey Badger was working to dig out of an area".

What could Honey Badgers have that Dragons want?

An explicit ability to sleep off poisons, like the honey badger does ( See @2:41 of the linked video); if they are prone to feign death and then just get right back up, that'll bring in terror.
Extending their tough skin to be like Honey Badgers can withstand bee stings - if they're like that to, say, arrows, and spears, then they're basically nearly invulnerable, while being able to set fires.

So...yeah; your dragons are honey badgers.
Answer: Make them unbearably irritating.
What if the dragons are constantly squabbling over territory making loud growling and screeching noises, plus in the question, you mention gem thieving, think about it, you are a king just trying to address your subjects about some new decrees, and out of nowhere a pricing screech then a little flying lizard swoops down steals your crown and sets your hair on fire. I'd be scared for the longevity of my reign after a humiliation like that.

How would tiny dragons strike TERROR?


How do I fix a puncture?

Question: I got a flat/puncture on my bike tube, how can I fix it myself without going to the nearest bike shop? What kind of equipment would I need?
Answer: Replacing a tire isn't that hard, but it will take a few times for it to seem like second-nature. If you have a road bike with skinny high-pressure tires, you can expect that the tires will be harder to remove and replace.
This is how I do it on my touring bike, offroad bikes, cruiser, and folding bikes. You'll need a pump to match the valves used on your bike (presta or schrader), a spare tube, and a place to work. Tire levers would be quite helpful.

Deflate the tire (if it isn't already completely flat).
Remove the wheel from the bike. This will probably require that you disconnect the brakes (if you have rim brakes, as the vast majority of bikes do). If your bike doesn't have a quick-release hub, you'll need a wrench for this.
Remove the tire from the wheel, if possible with the tube still inside. You may need a tire lever for this; it's a small plastic dookickey you can get in any bike store for a few bucks, usually in sets of three. You use it to pry the tube over the rim by working the edge of a tire lever under the edge of the tire and prying it over the edge of the rim, then sliding the edge of the tire around the edge of the rim; the tube should pop off when you've completed a circle. Two or three levers makes working with high-pressure tires easier. Once one edge of the tire is off, pull the whole tire and tube off the wheel in the direction of the side you were working with the tire lever, starting on the side of the tire opposite the valve. (Using a flathead screwdriver for this is not advised, as this can scratch the edge of the rim, potentially damaging the wheel. With some lower-pressure tires (such as mountain bikes or children's bikes) you may be able to remove the tire from the rim with no tools at all.)
Search for the object that made the puncture, and remove it. This may be a thorn, or a nail, or a piece of glass, but whatever it is will likely be sharp, so be careful! You may have to feel around with your fingertips, or submerge the tube in water and look for rising bubbles, or even turn the tire inside out. If you replace the tube without finding the object that caused the flat you may well get another flat. (If no cause for the flat is presenting itself, you may be getting a flat from the rim itself or a spoke poking the tube.)
Get your spare tube and put a little air in it, just enough to place it on the rim.  Put it on the tube, with the valve poking through the valve hole in the rim.
Replace the tire over the tube, pinching the tire to be sure that it's not pinching the tube as you inflate the tube inside the tire. Be careful that the tire is inflating evenly; the first few times you do this, you may want to inflate it a little at a time and check as you go.
Once the tire is inflated, re-install it on the bike, and please make sure to tighten your quick-release and hook your brakes back up.
Get back on your bike and enjoy your (for now) shiny new tire!

Watching a video or seeing pictures probably makes this all seem simpler; the other answers provided links to these resources. Bonus: More information that you'll ever need to know about tires and how to replace them: What Every Cyclist Should Know About Flat Tires
Answer: Just go grab yourself a tube repair kit.  They usually come with a few patches, some rubber cement, and something to scuff up the rubber of the tube.  Next, scuff up the tube around the puncture so that the cement can stick.  Apply the cement around the puncture and make sure to let it dry.  Then put the patch on and apply plenty of pressure for about a minute or so.
Comment: A patch kit is also smaller/lighter than carrying a spare tube.  I guess it doesn't matter too much if you have the space, but I would rather not throw out something perfectly fine just because it has a tiny hole.
Comment: @dotjoe: I tend to patch them once or twice before throwing them away. You need a repair kit for long rides where you might flat more times than you have extra tubes with you.
Comment: Tube rubber is not the most recycleable material in the world. I use patches so as not to throw away so much thrash, as a relaxing pastime at home, for the long rides as said by @JohanDahlin, and because it IS cheaper. And it's very easy.
Comment: People actually patch the tube? I mean, they're like only $3. Seems like a new tube would be roughly the same price and stronger than a tube patch kit.
Comment: Btw, if I have the space I do usually carry a spare tube.  Especially if I don't have time to do a patch.  However, I will usually patch the tube when I get home and then carry it as a spare.
Comment: The main reason for patching tubes is so that you *can* on that long ride where it rains, and get more punctures than spare tubes. Sometimes you are in a place where you can't get external help easily.
Comment: Tubes cost $9 CAD where I live. The incremental cost of fixing a tube is pennies.
Answer: Go buy yourself a repair kit for about £5-6 pounds. These would include the following:
1) Tyre levers - something to remove the tyre !!
2) Repair patches
3) Emery cloth - To roughen up the tube surface.
4) Tube of glue.
If you haven't got quick release wheels, make sure you take something to undue the wheels nuts. I learnt this the hard way when I first started riding my fixed wheel.
Answer: I find that the easiest way to deal with this problem is to just carry a spare tube around with you so you can quickly get back on the road.  Then you can patch the punctured tube when you get home.  You are also covered in cases where the tube cannot be patched, like if the valve itself breaks.
Regardless of whether you choose to patch or just replace the punctured tire, you should definitely feel and look for sharp objects along the inside and outside edges of the tire before inflating the new tube inside the tire.  Just yesterday I had a flat which was caused by a small piece of glass which I could not feel on the inside of the tire, as it was just barely poking through from the outside.  Very often, the object which caused the flat may be embedded somewhere in the tire, and if you don't properly remove it, you'll find yourself fixing another flat tire very quickly.
Answer: I really recommend the park tool glueless 'Super Patch' - so much less faff, and all you need to carry are the tyre levers and the patches. No cementing, no sandpapering, you just stick it straight on. It Just Works.
(I do not work for Park tool.)
Answer: My answer to flat tires was pretty simple.  I added a bottle of Joe's No Flat into each tire (tube).  I have been flat free for at least six months and about 3-4,000kms.  Sort of a minor miracle of sorts.  I live and ride in Thailand and the surrounding countries which all suffer from lots of sharp trash, glass, thorns, nails etc along the highways just waiting to puncture a bike tire.  I have Shrader valves in my tires which makes installing the sealant easy as you can remove the valve core and just squeeze in the liquid sealant.  Presta valves present a bigger problem as you cannot normally remove the valve core. My solution to this dilemma would be to replace the tube with a Shrader valve and drill out the rim to accept the larger valve.
Comment: If you look around there are some brands of tubes with removable presta valves. From memory Vittoria has some.
Comment: Thanks Anthony.  I am happy with my Shrader valves but I know lots of people swear by the narrow Presta valve.  Both valves have their + & - I guess.  It would be best to get a tube with a removable Presta valve core If you're going to add a tire sealant.
Comment: Sealant fluids may work for a while, but in the long run they are an inferior solution: You cannot patch a tube with sealant (well you can. but the sealant will solve away the glue over time), and you will still get flat tires form time to time (with half a dozen of punctures in the tube). I have entirely scrapped this approach due to these problems, and use good puncture resistant tires instead now. A puncture resistant tire can go many thousands of kilometers without a single puncture. Of course, really large shards may still cut through, but they would defeat sealants just as easily.

How do I fix a puncture?


Wireless controllers and access points

Question: What is the difference between wireless controllers and access points, and how come you need both devices to work efficiently together?
Answer: The controller function (not necessarily a dedicated device by the way) is essential to how any wireless network bigger than what you have at home works.

It allows you to configure large sets of APs efficiently from a single point
It manages the APs' radio layer such that the APs work together as a whole without interfering with each other
It may provide a termination point for traffic which needs to be tunneled up to a central point and filtered through a firewall (typically guest traffic for example)
By centralizing the "intelligence" of the wireless network it theoretically allows for simpler and cheaper APs (hence the "Lightweight" par of LWAP), though honestly I'm not sure to what extent this is still true.

In the Cisco world all that gets handled by the WLC, usually as a set of physical appliances, but there are other manufacturers which split this up, such as Aerohive, where the config server may be in the cloud, the radio management part is handled in peer-to-peer fashion by the APs themselves and you can get a sort of vpn gateway for tunneling traffic back to a central point.
Answer: A WLC will control all your LWAPs. You can control all the aspects of the LWAPs from the WLC. Normally, your LWAPs will create a CAP/WAP tunnel back to the WLC, and the Wi-Fi traffic will traverse the tunnel back to the WLC, where it will be put onto the network.
Answer: Wireless controller and access point are depends on each other . In real time world access -points are used to provide signal to devices for accessing internet using wireless medium . When user is moving across different access-points locations users will face network interruption due to hand-0ff issue
To overcome this technicall  draw back wire controllers are introduced . All access-points should be added to  wireless controller . WLC acts centralised management for all access-point for handling signals , changing password , SSID etc ...

Wireless controllers and access points


Sci-Fi Golden Age, aliens who see X-rays

Question: Around 1980, I read an anthology of stories by a Sci-Fi author from the 1930s. The aliens portrayed in these succinct short stories were extremely different from Earth creatures, and their peculiar bodies, psychologies, and cultures were key elements. I remember aliens with sideways, drum-shaped heads (no faces) who could see in the X-ray part of the spectrum. Also, a human-chasing alien cop or defender of some kind on its homeworld -- the human escaped by hiding in a tree or something, remembering that these aliens "never look up". And, a story that included aliens who ceremonially collected jewels and practiced ritual group suicide? The book noted that this author was not well-known. I think the editor also commented wryly on the quantly stereotyped international characters (American, English, French, German, Chinese).
Answer: You may want to try either "The Best of Stanley G. Weinbaum" published in 1979 or "The Best of Raymond Z. Gallun" published in 1978.


read only + browseable issue: configured in smb.conf - not showing in testparm

Question: I'm trying to setup a public share with Samba so I can stream my music files from my Ubuntu 14.04 server to my Sonos soundsystem. Been trying to crack this one for a couple of hours, but unfortunately no success. I've set the following share in smb.conf:
[global]
security = user
map to guest = bad user
guest account = nobody

;  interfaces = lo p2p1
;  bind interfaces only = true

[public]
comment = Public Share
path = /export/storage
browseable = yes
read only = yes
guest only = yes
guest ok = yes

The output in testparm looks good at first sight, but both the browseable & read only setting aren't visible:
[global]
server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu)
server role = standalone server
map to guest = Bad User
obey pam restrictions = Yes
pam password change = Yes
passwd chat = *Enter\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* .
unix password sync = Yes
syslog = 0
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 1000
dns proxy = No
usershare allow guests = Yes
panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d
idmap config * : backend = tdb

>>> not using printers / nor touched the settings, hence the skip <<<

[public]
comment = Public Share
path = /export/storage
guest only = Yes
guest ok = Yes

------END-------

Basically, both the browseable = yes and read only = yes aren't showing up. Have a funny feeling that this is causing my other devices in the Network not being able to connect to the samba share directory.
More specifically, I can add smb://192.168.0.xxx/export/storage and my Mac will recognize the server and try to connect. But when I try to login as a guest user, it doesn't make the connection and tells me to contact the system administrator, which is funny in its own way... ;-)
Tried to connect with other devices and have the same problem. On a foot note, set up a NFS server earlier today and have no problems whatsoever connecting devices to the same 'shared' directory.
Really struggling with this one, any help or point into the right direction is much appreciated.
Answer: Finally found the answer to the problem. I made a big mistake with the server address on my clients. I was pointing to the directory /export/music, but should've been pointing to the share itself [music], which is mentioned in  /etc/samba/smb.conf
Problem = smb://192.168.0.200/export/music
Solution = smb://192.168.0.200/music
Anyway, it's all working now :-)


What are the most commonly used web picture/image/icon sizes?

Question: Similar to what already exists regarding web banner sizes, is it possible to find the list of most commonly used picture/image/icon sizes on the web (e.g. 16x16 for small icons, 24x24 for medium icons, 50x50 to 70x50 for small profile pictures...)?
Answer: There is no standard as icons can be of any size depending on how they're going to be used. The most common sizes I've seen based on icon sets I have downloaded are:

12x12
16x16
32x32
64x64
128x128
256x256

Do you see a pattern here?
update
There are no default image sizes for websites as a whole. Dimensions are dictated by how the website needs to use them. When size does matter is when you are using a third party service and have to conform to their standards. Examples would be gravatar sizes. But if someone wanted to use different sizes for their own blog engine they could certainly do so and wouldn't break anything or cause confusion elsewhere.
So use whatever sizes you need to use and only worry about what someone else is doing when you have to interface with their API or any form of interface that has size requirements.
Comment: Thanks but you seem to have focused on icons, what about pictures/images. I appreciate there may not be any standards hence the phrasing ("commonly used"). What would be great would be to find a table inventorying the various types of pictures/images (small profile picture, full size profile picture, news thumbnails...) and their corresponding sizes on the major websites (facebook, twitter, linkedin, youtube...)
Comment: John's answer pretty much stands; there is no common. Twitter scales your avatar to 73x73, but it's possible to view the original, whatever size it is. Here's a [Facebook image cheat sheet](http://www.dreamgrow.com/facebook-cheat-sheet-sizes-and-dimensions/), with some *weird* (from the perspective of "common") sizes. LinkedIn: 100x100 though some of that is a white border they add on. And that's just profiles for only three sites.


MCollective vs. Capistrano for teams used to Capistrano

Question: If a team is used to using Capistrano for application deployments, what is the compelling benefit of switching to MCollective, or adding it into the mix? The team is already taking on the task of adopting Puppet for system configuration management, so there is a question of how much to learn at once.
Answer: Capistrano and MCollective solve different problems. Sure, there is overlap, but Capistrano is very heavily focused on deploys, where MCollective is aimed towards generic orchestration - performing ad-hoc tasks and collecting information. You can make MCollective do your deploys, but IMHO it is better suited for discovery and ad-hoc information gathering, or for ad-hoc tasks that don't require guaranteed execution. I think both tools are useful to have in your toolbox. Follow your instincts and take it a step at a time; focus on adopting Puppet and then evaluate whether MCollective is a good fit for your use cases.
Answer: You might be interested in Puppi.  This is a puppet module, a local command, and an mcollective agent wrapping it allowing you to do some deployment related activities.


Why is the blessing of Mezonos not mentioned in the Mishnah?

Question: The Mishnayos of the sixth perek of Berachos discuss all the different blessings which one makes on food, with the exception of the blessing 'borei minei mezonos'. Why is this not mentioned?
Comment: Tosefta berachot 4:6 and 7 does mention it. Just commenting to help guide answers...
Comment: Could it be categorized like the other _b'rachos_ in that _mishna_? It seems it would be more complicated.
Comment: Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/79385/9682
Answer: The first פני יהושע in Keitzad Mevarchim discusses this question.  His suggestion is that the Mishna is only listing berachos that include a lot of different species, to contrast with R' Yehuda who is brought at the end of the Mishna and says each species needs its own specific blessing.
According to Tosefos in the discussion of kimcha d'chiti on berachos 36a, it seems that Mezonos would not be a "פרי" - Tosefos understands that only bread is considered to be a פרי of wheat (See Tos. 38a s.v. האי דובשא that מיני מזונות has עלוי אחרינא בפת and therefore would not be a פרי since it has been processed), as opposed to mezonos which has lost its פרי status through being processed.  The Mishna is discussing blessings on פירות, as it begins with כיצד מברכין על הפירות, and therefore Mezonos would not belong there.
Comment: any forthcoming explanation for the downvote?  Out of curiosity.
Comment: http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/a/146. (I upvoted, myself.)
Comment: @msh210 I downvoted that post :) and to make it more ironic, I got a pop-up asking me to leave a comment about my downvote to be constructive!!!  But I was asking out of curiosity, as I pointed out - I don't know what was unhelpful about this post.


Fastboot on Samsung devices

Question: I was trying to do some fastboot commands on my Galaxy devices (Galaxy S4, 9515, 4Tab4), I start with fastboot devices and I am getting nothing (after adb reboot bootloader), is there any problem with samsung devices?
Answer: Simple... Samsung devices do not support fastboot, you use Odin or Heimdall to flash what you need.
Comment: I did try Odin to flash my Samsung device with the TWPR , and Odin crash after like 15 minutes, is there any thing we should do after using Odin ?
Comment: @medlamineSemassel ODIN is a software that runs on your PC not on your phone, once it flashes TWRP (should only take a few seconds), you don't need it anymore. Perhaps I am not understanding your problem, but this maybe a different issue than your original question. Be aware there are lots of tutorials and information on the internet regarding this device, it is very common. A good place to start would be here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s4
Answer: Finally It works for me this way :

Got the CF-Auto-Root-xxxx-xxxxx-gti9515.zip from : https://autoroot.chainfire.eu/
unzip CF-Auto-Root-xxxx-xxxxx-gti9515.zip
mv CF-Auto-Root-xxxx-xxxxx-gti9515.tar.md5 CF-Auto-Root-xxxx-xxxxx-gti9515.tar
tar xvf CF-Auto-Root-xxxx-xxxxx-gti9515.tar
Put the device on Download mode ( Vol Down + Home + Power then Vol Up)
sudo heimdall flash --RECOVERY recovery.img --CACHE cache.img.ext4
after testing you have root rights ( adb shell & su )
sudo heimdall flash --RECOVERY recovery.img ( TWRP )

Then you can go to recovery mode and use TWRP to install custom ROMs.
Comment: Thank you! Additionally - some devices like mine do not work well with Heimdall 1.4.1 and need latest 1.4.2 to work. I had to go according https://github.com/Benjamin-Dobell/Heimdall/issues/292 and compile it manually by https://github.com/Benjamin-Dobell/Heimdall/wiki/Build-instructions-(Linux)

Fastboot on Samsung devices


Stop user from saving and publishing when a field is Empty

Question: Is there a simple way of stopping user from saving and publishing when a field is empty?
Answer: 1) Publishing
To stop publishing when field is empty, there is no OOTB functionality. One option how you can achieve it with minimal effort is to put item (template) under workflow and use below approach to disable saving item when field is empty.
This will force content editors to fill in field values before saving and proceeding to next step of workflow. Afterwards they need to finish workflow and publish. Publish can be then manually or automatically when workflow is pushed to last step.
Without filling field, publishing won't be also possible.
2) Saving
You need to apply validation rules and especially FatalError to prevent saving  of item when field is empty.
To achieve this you need to:

Create similar validation rule as "Required" validation rule which is OOTB to achieve checking whether field is empty. By similar I meant exact copy (:-)) of '/sitecore/system/Settings/Validation Rules/Field Rules/Required' item
Configure validation rule as FatalError - this will halt saving of item when validation fails - Set Result=FatalError as value of Parameters field in your validation rule

Assign validation rule for your item template - to be sure item is not saved in every scenario, you need to select the Validation Rules` section in item template and select the rules to apply in the fields "Quick Action Bar", "Validate Button", "Validator Bar" and the "Workflow".

More information
Validation rules:

https://briancaos.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/using-sitecore-field-validators/
http://sitecoreworld.blogspot.sk/2014/12/sitecore-validation-examples.html
http://www.awareweb.com/awareblog/11-11-14-sitecore-custom-field

FatalError validation:

https://doc.sitecore.net/sitecore_experience_platform/content_authoring/getting_started_with_content_authoring/working_with_items/validate_an_item
Comment: When I choose "Insert item", a dialog pops up asking me for the name of the new item. And then (AFAIK) the new item is *immediately saved*, with usually all fields empty; please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming this is correct, would having validation rule(s) as you describe prevent the initial (automatic) save from actually happening? Or do the validation rules apply only *after* the initial (automatic) save?


Why are large amounts of DNA required for analysis?

Question: I know PCR is used to create large amounts of copies of genes and that it's a scientific breakthrough but want to understand why. Why do we need large amounts of DNA to be able to analyse it, to utilise it. Isn't a single DNA molecule enough?
Answer: Firstly, A DNA sample obtained from a cell or whatever is never going to contain just the DNA sequence you want but will instead contain the entire genomic DNA, plasmids, RNA sequences and whatnot. By using PCR you can selectively multiply the amount of desired DNA sequence while the undesired sequences do not get copied. Keep the PCR going long enough and the amount of undesirable DNA versus the desired DNA sequence is going to become negligible. At that point you can do whatever experiment you want with your DNA sample and be reasonably sure that whatever result you get is caused entirely by your DNA sequence of interest.
Secondly, even if you could isolate a single DNA molecule what would you do with it? You couldn't determine its length by gel electrophoresis as a single DNA molecule wouldn't make a visible band and building it into a plasmid will most likely fail as you only get 1 chance. You probably wouldn't even be able to tell you had a DNA molecule as machines in your everyday lab aren't sensitive enough to detect a single DNA molecule.
Thirdly, having a large quantity of DNA allows you to perform different experiments from the same sample. Most DNA analysis methods I know of are destructive in that the DNA used cannot be reused for another experiment, so a large enough quantity of DNA to perform all planned experiments without having to obtain a new sample (and introduce all kinds of potential problems) is useful.
So, in summary, PCR allows us to filter the desired DNA sequence from a sample, perform meaningful analysis on this sequence and lets us use one sample for multiple experiments. There might be even more advantages to PCR that I have missed but these the ones that sprung to mind.
Answer: Many of the methods used to visualize the presence of DNA, such as gel electrophoresis, rely on visual analysis whether by human eye or machine. A significant amount of DNA beyond what might be extracted directly from a particular source is required for this. This need is exercerbated by the fact that the DNA is typically broken down into fragments for analysis.
Scroll near the bottom of this link to see an example of a gel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis


Object in the orbit or orbiting Uranus's moon Puck

Question: I realize the response to this question is fairly involved but here goes. I need to have an alien spacecraft either in orbit around Uranus's moon Puck or somewhere in Puck's orbit around the planet if there is a stable point in the orbit that would work. Which option would be best for a decades long sojourn in that orbit using a minimal amount of power to maintain its position? Thanks.
Comment: Perhaps you could engage the expertise of the community better if you were to include mass, orbital radius, some details about the systems involved, rather than asking a blank question and requiring us to do all the work. Yes we can look it up, I get the feeling that you haven't. What research have you done?
Comment: FYI: [Hill sphere calculator](http://orbitsimulator.com/formulas/hillsphere.html)
Answer: /somewhere in Puck's orbit around the planet/
Park it on Puck.
That is somewhere in Puck's orbit.  You do not need to worry about it drifting off.  On the surface of the moon it is unlikely to be discovered but floating around loose a space probe or strong telescope might spot it.  You can cover it with a tarp or whatever they use on Puck for long term storage of space vehicles.
Comment: Worth noting that surface gravity on Puck is about 0.03 m/s^2 .... less than 0.3% of what it is on Earth. Escape velocity on Puck is 68 m/s. It's not too hard to get off the surface if you want to.
Answer: Calculate the Hill Sphere of Puck
The Hill Sphere is the area around a celestial body where the gravitational attraction of that body dominates the attraction of other, smaller objects. The radius of the Hill sphere ($r_{H}$) of a body of mass $m$, orbiting a larger body of mass $M$ is calculated by
$$ r_H \approx a(1-e)\sqrt[3]{\frac{m}{3M}}.$$
For the case of Puck ($m = 3\times10^{18} \text{ kg}$) orbiting Uranus ($M = 9\times10^{25}\text{ kg}$) at a semi-major axis of $a = 9\times10^7\text{ m}$ with eccentricity $e=0.00012$; we see that $r_H \approx 200 \text{ km}$.
Puck has no atmosphere and is only some 80 km in radius; so, relative to the size of the planet, that isn't that close to it. The closer to the planet, the more stable the orbit will be on geological time scales. I would predict, however, that an object in orbit of Puck would not remain stable for millions of years. There are plenty of other moons of Uranus, and much bigger ones; certain alignments seem likely to pull the object of interest out of the orbit of Puck into the orbit of Uranus.
Ultimately, an object is more stable in an orbit of Uranus than it is of Puck; but, math says that you can expect an object to be somewhat stable in a close orbit of that small moon, certainly on a time scale of decades.
Comment: Be very careful about your assumptions of long term stability. [Mass concentrations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy)#Effect_of_lunar_mascons_on_satellite_orbits) can peturb your orbit enough to crash you in a surprisingly short time. Higher orbits are safer.
Answer: I like the answer by Willk regarding landing. If you want it to stay in space, with minimal power, consider the Lagrange Points of the Uranus/Puck system, notably L4 and L5.
On the long term Uranus is a little crowded, but for decades they should work nicely.
Comment: The L4 and L5 points might be fine even over quite a long time... the Saturnian system has four [trojan moons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-orbital_configuration#Trojan_moons) which seem unlikely to have all arrived in the very recent past.