The table below is a list of United States presidential elections ordered by margin of victory in the Electoral College vote.
The margin of victory in a U.S. presidential election, with the exception below, would be the difference between the number of electoral votes won by the candidate with at least a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) and the number received by the second place candidate. Theoretically this number would be in the range of 2 to 538. The numbers above assume that all electors vote.
The exception would occur if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote (this includes a tie). In that case, the House of Representatives, voting as state delegations, would choose from up to three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Thus the winner could be an initially third-place candidate who received one electoral vote.
Because the Electoral College has grown in size, the results are normalized to compensate. For example, take two elections, 1848 and 1968. In the election of 1968 Richard Nixon got a majority by 32 votes. At first glance, the election of 1848 appears closer, because Zachary Taylor got a majority by only 18 votes. But Nixon could have gotten as many as 269 votes above a majority (if he had won unanimously), while Taylor could only have gotten 145 votes above a majority. Thus, we normalize the two elections to compare them. We calculate Nixon's margin of victory by dividing the 32 by 269 to get 0.119. We do the same with Taylor, dividing 18 by 145, to get 0.124. And we find that Nixon's election was actually closer because a smaller fraction of the electors separated Nixon from a contingent election.
While the above explanation applies to modern elections, initially the process was different. Prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment, the winner of the presidential election was the person who got both a majority of electors to vote for him and who got the most votes, because each elector cast two presidential votes. Thus, for elections prior to 1804, if two candidates got above 50% of the electors, the margin of victory is the victorious candidate's margin over the other candidate who got above 50% of the electors. Of the four elections prior to the 12th Amendment, two involved two candidates getting above 50% of the electors: 1792 and 1800.
Let c be the total number of electors voting in the election. Let w be the number of electoral votes cast for the candidate with the most electoral votes, and let r be the number of votes for the runner-up.
Note that the elections of 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800 took place before the 12th Amendment and thus each elector had two votes (one for president and one for vice president, but did not distinguish between them). The table's "runner-up" column shows the number of electoral votes for the candidate who got the second highest number of combined electoral votes (and thus was elected vice-president) for each of these years except 1800. The 1800 election was a tie between the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the same party. The value in the "runner-up" column for 1800 is the number of electoral votes received by the presidential candidate of the other major political party (even though the two winning candidates each received more electoral votes than he did). The number in parentheses in the "Rank" column is the rank that would have been assigned to this election under the rules of the 12th Amendment.
Also note that in the following table, the election of 1824 is ranked closer than the election of 1800 because the election of 1800 resulted in a two-way draw between the same party's candidates for President and Vice President (since presidential and vice presidential electoral votes were not distinguished), while the election of 1824 resulted in the House of Representatives selecting the person who won the second largest number of electoral votes (out of the top 3) when no candidate got a majority.
a None of the presidential candidates in 1824 received a majority of the electoral vote, so the presidential election was decided by the House of Representatives, who selected Adams.
b Under the original procedure for the Electoral College, each elector had two votes and voted for two individuals. The candidate receiving the majority of votes became president and the candidate with the second highest number of votes became vice-president. While Jefferson had more electoral votes than his principal opponent, John Adams, he was tied with his own vice-presidential running mate, Aaron Burr, in electoral votes. Because of the tie, the 1800 presidential election was decided by the House of Representatives, who selected Jefferson as president. Subsequently, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution was enacted in order to provide for the president and vice-president to be elected as a single ticket.
c Votes which were not counted don't change the majority needed to win. Although there are only 232 counted votes in 1820, winner needed 118 (majority of 235) votes to win, same in 1872: By resolution of the House, 3 votes cast for Greeley were not counted (makes 349 counted votes) but 177 votes are still needed to win (majority of 352).
d There was a dispute as to whether Missouri's electoral votes in 1820 were valid, due to the timing of its assumption of statehood. The figures listed include those votes.
e George Washington received the vote of every elector, but the second vote of each elector was split among other candidates.
f Only ten of the thirteen states cast electoral votes in the first ever presidential election. North Carolina and Rhode Island were ineligible to participate since they had not yet ratified the United States Constitution. New York failed to appoint its electors before the appropriate deadline because of a deadlock in its state legislature.
This page was last edited on 18 February 2019, at 15:14 (UTC).


Why are the graphic entities better than the traditional table entities?
SES uses graphic entities to represent the business entities. Traditional enterprise systems use table entities. Why are the graphic entities better than the table entities?
Graphic entity has a lot advantages versus table entity. For the data types, the SES data are no longer limited to the text data. It can be geometry shapes, pictures, icons along with the text data. It can even be the multimedia types. This will tremendously enrich the data for the enterprise systems. For the data input, user can just directly draw the data on the screen. Compare to the data entry to the tables, this gives more flexibility. For the data display, just as everybody knows, "picture is worth a thousand words". It is more intuitive, easier to understand and takes less time to communicate between different parties. Most importantly, the graphic entities in SES are dynamic. They can be directly involved in the executions of workflows. The data can be changed dynamically along with the execution of the workflows. For example, if you drag an employee from one department to another, the employee will stay in the new dept. It's just that simple.


How do I stop the window that wants me to delete or save published files?
I am trying to load my sitebuilder (desktop) and it wants me to go through an endless string of choosing to delete or save published files. I literally went through it for 10 minutes and got so tired. I need to update my website right now and have no time for this. How do I bypass it?
I am sorry, but it is not possible to bypass it. You could rename the site files folder on your computer and when you connect to Sitebuilder desktop, the site will be downloaded from the published version. You would have to wait for the download, but you won't have to interact with each file.


This semester I have been teaching a class that the university's course catalogue designates, "ENG 489: Literature and Empire." Because I'm neither a historian of colonialism nor a scholar of world literatures, I approached this class as an opportunity to test the limits of my training while still taking advantage of my specialization in British modernism. I opened the course with Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (as well as its critical reception history) and Virginia Woolf's first novel, The Voyage Out, before moving on to Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism and Susan Buck-Morss' much more recent Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History. The last three weeks of the semester were devoted to Derek Walcott's long (epic) poem Omeros. While I'm quite comfortable taking up Conrad and Woolf with a roomful of English majors (I've had quite a bit of practice in my short tenure as a literature instructor), these past several weeks of teaching texts in which I do not specialize have proven to be, on the one hand, pedagogically grueling and, on the other, satisfactorily humbling.
More than this, though. Over the past two months, I have come to love Said, Hegel, and Walcott. I might eventually spend time discussing Walcott, but I want to focus primarily on the first two here.
This confession has confused many of my colleagues, partly because Said and Hegel do not have much purchase among the intellectual circles I frequent. Said, for many, is a bit outdated. A friend recently asked why I would teach Culture and Imperialism when so many of Said's insights have either been improved upon or so normalized in English departments that they barely require mention anymore. Another asked why I would spend time with a "humanist" when my work is typically drawn to post- or anti-humanists like Foucault and Deleuze.
My answer? First, while Said's arguments concerning overlapping and interdependent histories of colonialism and colonial resistance may certainly be part of an institutionalized "common sense," these arguments are not necessarily "common sense" to our students. (I gave a similar answer to a colleague who also asked why "on earth" I was teaching an "over-taught" text like Heart of Darkness. "Over-taught?" I responded, "How could it be over-taught when none of my students have read it before?") Second, I think there is more to teaching a great critic like Said than simply rehearsing or transmitting the content of his argument to students. What about the form of his argument? The rhetorical choices among his arguments? The erudition of his prose? The style of his thought? The political urgency in his tone? The limitations of his examples and his archive? The inventory of argumentative gestures, postures, and modes of providing evidence?
Virilio's notion of counter-habitation: to live as migrants do in habitually uninhabited but nevertheless public spaces. A similar notion occurs in Mille Plateaux (volume 2 of Anti-Oedipe) by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. A great deal of this immensely rich book is not easily accessible, but I have found it mysteriously suggestive. The chapter entitled "Traité de nomadologie: La Machine de guerre," builds on Virilio's work by extending his ideas on movement and space to a highly eccentric study of an itinerant war machine. This quite original treatise contains a metaphor about a disciplined kind of intellectual mobility in an age of institutionalization, regimentation, co-optation. The war machine, Deleuze and Guattari say, can be assimilated to the military powers of the state -- but, since it is fundamentally a separate entity, need not be, any more than the spirit's nomadic wanderings need always be put at the service of institutions. The war machine's source of strength is not only its nomadic freedom but also its metallurgical art -- which Deleuze and Guattari compare to the art of musical composition -- by which materials are forged, fashioned "beyond separate forms; [this metallurgy, like music] stresses the continuing development of form itself, and beyond individually differing materials it stresses the continuing variation within matter itself." Precision, concreteness, continuity, form -- all these have the attributes of a nomadic practice whose power, Virilio says, is not aggressive but transgressive.
Precision, concreteness, continuity, form. Who on earth reads Deleuze this way? Eleanor Kaufman pursues (though does not really complete) these conceptual associations in Deleuze, The Dark Precursor (2012), but who else? How might reading Deleuze alongside Said allow us to rethink Deleuze's oeuvre as something -- contra Peter Hallward -- that is not "out of this world"? Again, Said is not a Deleuze scholar (indeed, he emphasizes his own uncertainty about the mysteriousness of Mille Plateaux), and yet I feel that his position as a non-Deleuzian may very well aid us a great deal more than many of the essays in The Cambridge Companion to Gilles Deleuze (2012). And why? Precisely because his style of thought is already different from that of Deleuze/Guattari, because he feels no allegiance to their project, because he has the freedom to praise the potentiality of their concepts without overextending the applicability of those same concepts to all domains of political action. Indeed, I already feel the need to reread Deleuze and Guattari against themselves and to consider how important "continuity" is to them (even if they appear to privilege "discontinuity" and "rupture").
And all this leaves out, of course, what should not be left out when one writes of Said: the incredible rhetorical and political efforts in essays like "Michel Foucault as an Intellectual Imagination," "Islam as News," "Secular Criticism," the often misunderstood "Traveling Theory," as well as his late memoir and interviews. And, now that I have read it, I cannot image a world without his posthumous collection, On Late Style: Music and Literature Against the Grain (2006). How can I not think of Deleuze and Guattari's What Is Philosophy? when I read this?
Each of us can readily supply evidence of how it is that late works crown a lifetime of aesthetic endeavor. Rembrandt and Matisse, Bach and Wagner. But what of artistic lateness not as harmony and resolution but as intransigence, difficulty, and unresolved contradition? What if age and ill health don't produce the serenity of "ripeness is all"? This is the case with Ibsen, whose final works, especially When We Dead Awaken, tear apart the career and the artist's craft and reopen the questions of meaning, success, and progress that the artist's late period is supposed to move beyond. Far from resolution, then, Ibsen's last plays suggest an angry and disturbed artist for whom the medium of drama provides an occasion to stir up more anxiety, tamper irrevocably with the possibility of closure, and leave the audience more perplexed and unsettled than before.
Of course, all this is not to say that the point of teaching Said in my course was to insist that he was actually a Deleuzian or that Deleuze (whom we were not even studying) was Saidian. All this is to say that there are a great many reasons to continue studying and teaching Said's texts, including the simple reason of introducing students to the work of an erudite scholar who masterfully shows again and again the limitation of bracketing culture from historical inquiry, of bracketing historical inquiry from the concerns of interpenetrating cultures and overlapping territories, of bracketing ourselves from potential complicities in continuing imperialistic structures of attitude and reference, and of bracketing our theoretical paradigms from perspectives that may lead us to challenge the assumptions of those paradigms (or at least the work of interpreters who have worked with us to shape and to crystallize those paradigms).
And, so, what about Hegel? How on earth, given contemporary theory's outright hatred of him, could I learn to love him? And why on earth teach him in an English course? Of course, I did not directly teach Hegel's philosophy to my literature students (I am not trained to do so, after all). Rather, I assigned Buck-Morss' much more manageable text Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History... and supplemented it with paragraphs 178-196 of Phenomenology of Spirit.
[Hobbes] sees [slavery] as a consequence of the war of all against all in the state of nature, hence belonging to the natural disposition of man. [. . .] Prior to writing The Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel had dealt with the theme of mutual recognition in terms of Sittlichkeit: criminals against society or the mutual recognitions of religious community or personal affection. But now this young lecturer, still only in his early thirties made the audacious move to reject these earlier versions (more acceptable to the established philosophical discourse) and to inaugurate, as the central metaphor of his work, not slavery versus some mythical state of nature (as those from Hobbes to Rousseau had done earlier), but slaves versus masters, thus bringing into his text the present, historical realities that surrounded it like invisible ink.
Being an English major with comparatively little experience studying political philosophy, this reading of Hegel's use of slavery as a turn away from natural law to the actuality of human struggle was enlightening. More than this: it gave me and my students a task that we were already trained to pursue, that is, to investigate how slavery -- or, perhaps more generally, oppression or inequality -- is used figuratively not only in political philosophy but also in literature. In what way does slavery (and its ties to the enlightenment) operate even in modernist literature? In Conrad? In Woolf? In Yeats? In Joyce? In Salih? And how might we extend this question of the figurativization of oppression into other domains? Into feminism? Queer studies? How, for instance, might we think the figurativization of slavery in the political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau and Kant with and against more contemporary figurativizations of "the closet" and queer life, figurativizations that, in the end, have zero concern for queer life (just as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau appear to have had zero concern for actual slavery)? It seems to me that if Hegel can be read in this way that his work is far more productive to the concerns of contemporary theory than scholars in English and comparative literature might typically think.
In his reading of Adam Smith, Hegel saw a description of society that challenged the British and French enlightenment tradition on its most sacred ground: the state of nature. Far from a historical invariant and in stark opposition to natural law theory, this is a historically specific anthropology of mutual dependency. Whereas contract theory from Hobbes, to Locke, to Rousseau posited the independent and free individual possessed of natural liberties as the starting point of philosophical speculation, determining the terms for entering into societal and contractual agreements, Hegel's modern subject is already in a web of social dependencies because of commodity exchange [. . .] In the 1805-6 Jena texts, Hegel moves in rapid succession among economic themes [. . .] and the political themes of master and slave and the "struggle of life and death," wherein "mutual recognition" appears "in its extreme form" [. . .] Conceptually, the revolutionary struggle of slaves, who overthrow their own servitude and establish a constitutional state, provides the theoretical hinge that takes Hegel's analysis out of the limitlessly expanding colonial economy and onto the plane of world history, which he defines as the realization of freedom -- a theoretical solution that was taking place in practice in Haiti at that very moment. [. . .] Mutual recognition among equal emerges with logical necessity out of the contradictions of slavery, not the least of which is trading human slaves as, legally, "things," when they show themselves capable of becoming the active agents of history by struggling against slavery in a "battle of recognition" under the banner, "Liberty or Death!"
I found these observations about Hegel and Haiti to be an exciting extension of Said's analyses and arguments in Culture and Imperialism, and I am left fumbling with theoretical and methodological questions about our units of analysis and our critical departure points. It seems to me that from a Hegelian/Saidian viewpoint -- one that also marks Raymond Williams' Marxism and Literature -- that the location of our analyses in a single, bracketed text, culture, period, discipline, or even archive, while certainly pragmatic insofar as "a scholar cannot be an expert in everything" (Buck-Morss 22), blinds us not only to the actuality of history and all of its potential becomings but, more importantly, perpetuates disciplinary and institutional blindness. For instance, how might one reread the allusions to "India" in the work of Woolf? How might these allusions (as structures of reference that Woolf shares with many of her contemporaries, including E.M. Forster, James Joyce, and D.H. Lawrence) interact with contemporary distributions and resistances to British literature in India itself? What might we gain by attempting to inhabit an interactional perspective? I write these questions, of course, as a scholar who works primarily on a handful of British and American writers, who tends to read novels and poems ahistorically, who can speak only one language, who often tries to locate and articulate the "logic" of an author, how an author thinks and feels, and study their work using this logic as my primary optic. Because of these dimensions and limitations of my research, I will probably never take up this question of Woolf and India (though others, with more appropriate cultural, historical, and linguistic training, certainly may [and perhaps already have!]).
Yet, despite my allergy to history, I still find myself moved by Buck-Morss' Hegelian insights (which are not at all apologetic for Hegel's later "retreat from revolutionary radicalism" ). Why? Perhaps I am sympathetic to the AND in Buck-Morss' subject (Hegel AND Haiti) and, by extension, in the Phenomenology (master AND slave). "Ultimately, 'Hegel and Haiti' is about the connection, the 'and' that links these two historical phenomena in silence" (Buck-Morss 12). "Self-consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged" (Hegel 111). Neither of the components which the AND joins (Hegel/Haiti, master/slave) is the necessary, primary starting point of analysis for either Buck-Morss or Hegel. Rather, they constitute points of analysis between which each thinker continually passes. This continuous passage, I claim, is what makes Hegel so difficult to read for the non-specialist, who desires a clear thesis or statement of philosophical position when the whole point of Hegel's argument is the passage between his paragraphs. It's as if an unspoken "and yet" opens each of his paragraphs, throwing his speculative analysis into perpetual revision as he struggles to hold both participants of his speculations (as well as their respective, overlapping perspectives of themselves and each other) in view.
The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth but rather sees in it simple disagreements. The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole.
Bud AND blossom AND fruit... a limited analogy, to be sure, but one that nevertheless illustrates that one must encompass more than isolated positions or perspectives or moments in a text in order to learn how to feel and to think "the life of the whole."
Indeed, Buck-Morss imbues the AND (meaning the work of heuristic, scholarly conjunction, even of seemingly unrelated components) with a great deal of potential: "What if every time that the consciousness of individuals surpassed the confines of present constellations of power in perceiving the concrete meaning of freedom, this were the valued moment, however transitory, of the realization of absolute spirit? What other silences would need to be broken? What undisciplined stories would be told?" (75).
[G.D.] Just ideas: this is the encounter, the becoming, the theft and the nuptials, this ‘between-two’ of solitudes. When Godard says he would like to be a production studio, he is obviously not trying to say that he wants to produce his own films or he wants to edits his own books. He is trying to say just ideas, because, when it comes down to it, you are all alone, and yet you are like a conspiracy of criminals. You are no longer an author, you are a production studio, you have never been more populated. Being a 'gang' -- gangs live through the worst dangers; forming judges, courts, schools, families and conjugalities again. But what is good in a gang, in principle, is that each goes about his own business while encountering others, each brings in his loot and a becoming is sketched out -- a bloc starts moving -- which no longer belongs to anyone but is 'between' everyone, like a little boat which children let slip and lose, and is stolen by others. In the TV conversations 6 times 2 what were Godard and Mieville doing if not making the richest use of their solitude, using it as a means of encounter, making a line or bloc shoot between two people, producing all the phenomena of a double capture, showing what the conjunction AND is, neither a union, nor a juxtaposition, but the birth of a stammering, the outline of a broken line which always sets off at right angles, a sort of active and creative line of flight? AND . . . AND . . . AND . . .
[C.P.] We can always add a 3rd to a 2, a 4th to a 3, etc., we do do not escape dualism in this way, since the elements of any set whatever can be related to a succession of choices which are themselves binary. It is not the elements or the sets which define the multiplicity. What defines it is the AND, as something which has its place between the elements or between the sets. AND, AND, AND -- stammering. And even if there are only two terms, there is an AND between the two, which is neither the one nor the other, nor the one which becomes the other, but which constitutes the multiplicity. This is why it is always possible to undo dualisms from the inside, by tracing the line of flight which passes between the two terms or the two sets, the narrow stream which belongs neither to the one nor to the other, but draws both into a non-parallel evolution, into a heterochronous becoming. At least this does not belong to the dialectic. Thus we [i.e. Deleuze and Parnet] could proceed like this: each chapter would remain divided in two, there would no longer be any reason to sign each part, since it is between the two anonymous parts that the conversation would take place, and the AND Félix, AND Fanny, AND you, AND all those whom we speak, AND me, would appear as so many distorted images in running water.
Deleuze and Parnet intend to be anti-Hegelian here ("this does not belong to the dialectic"), and yet the observations of Buck-Morss and Hegel that I've cited suggest a different relationship altogether among these thinkers: not one of opposition but of extension beyond historical concerns. Indeed, Deleuze and Parnet suggest that the AND has a creative force to match its potentially (and critically) undisciplined one. The space between Deleuze and Parnet -- much like the space between Hegel and Haiti, master and slave, culture and imperialism, Said and Mille Plateaux -- seems to open in a different direction, to overturn readymade presumptions about the events or persons or texts which the AND conjoins. Again, my point is not that Buck-Morss or Hegel is a Deleuzian or that Deleuze is secretly a Hegelian (an argument that others -- e.g., Žižek and Jameson -- have already tried to make). Yet between Hegel and Buck-Morss and Said and Deleuze I cannot help but feel a larger theoretical point: that any analysis of an individual unit (text, mind, culture) that does not at least consider the ways in which that unit is always already interactive (kinetically or potentially) with other units (texts, minds, cultures, territories) somehow falls short of what it is we may identify as the "goal" of a scholarly argument (explanation, understanding, problematization, critique, effectivity, resistance, etc.).
For instance, having just come back from a conference at which I participated in seminar on "love and affect," I wonder how the collective insights of these theorists might even teach us how to re-approach emotion and affect not simply as forces that move, disperse, or attract individual minds and bodies but as forces that concern far more than minds and bodies. In my contribution to the seminar, I tried to imagine a love that exceeds narratives of coupling (between lover and beloved), a territorial love that maps points and trajectories and movements in excess of lover and beloved. What might it mean that "my" love for "you" is also beholden to the spaces in which "our" love works or that a shift in territory ("me" moving other there; "you" getting a new job here; "us" rearranging the furniture; etc.) might have irrevocable consequences for "our" love, consequences to which we do not even have to give consent or acknowledgement? What might it mean to think that other things (objects, landscapes, histories, strangers, other desires) might be as equally (if not more) constitutive of "our" love than the tastes or psyches of either "you" or "me"? In short, what if we apply the AND not only to people or to places or to events but to much more parochial phenomena? What if love is nothing but the living operation of the AND as it forms and de-forms territories, assemblages, and collectivities?
While these questions are so far removed from the concerns of Hegel, Said, or Buck-Morss (too anti-human, too a-historical, too ontological rather than actual, etc.), I could not even ask these questions without their insights AND those of Deleuze and Parnet.


How to fully divide Firefox classic version and Developer edition?
I've allowed to start DE while classic Firefox opened in my settings. I want to run them with different sync e-mail authorized, with different bookmarks, with different history for a different people use them. Is it possible? - I can't find right information about that possibility. Problem is that: 1) They can't work together with any settings (screenshot, trnslt: "FF already run, but doesn't responding. To open new window close it."), but actually it still responds; 2) I can't use one sync e-mail in FF and another one in DE. It changes to last authorization in both. So, what you recommend? Is it even possible to use them like different browsers for different people?
You can have as many versions of Firefox as you want. I have six or seven. HOWEVER: Each version must use its own profile. This is because some things are not compatible.
-P <profile>       Start with <profile>.
-new-instance      Open new instance, not a new window in running instance.
-UILocale <locale> Start with <locale> resources as UI Locale.
-console           Start Firefox with a debugging console.
-new-window  <url> Open <url> in a new window.
-new-tab     <url> Open <url> in a new tab.
-search     <term> Search <term> with your default search engine.
You can have as many versions of Firefox as you want. I have six or seven. HOWEVER: Each version must use its own profile. This is because some things are not compatible. Each must be started with special options on the command line. For example (all on one line); C:\PROGRA~1\MOZILL~1\firefox.exe -no-remote -new-instance -new-window -P Firefox_v_57 . https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Command_Line_Options . Usage: C:\PROGRA~1\MOZILL~1\firefox.exe [ options ... ] [URL] where options include: . -h or -help Print this message. -v or -version Print Firefox version. -P <profile> Start with <profile>. -migration Start with migration wizard. -ProfileManager Start with ProfileManager. -no-remote Do not accept or send remote commands; implies -new-instance. -new-instance Open new instance, not a new window in running instance. -UILocale <locale> Start with <locale> resources as UI Locale. -safe-mode Disables extensions and themes for this session. -console Start Firefox with a debugging console. -jsconsole Open the Error console. -browser Open a browser window. -new-window <url> Open <url> in a new window. -new-tab <url> Open <url> in a new tab. -preferences Open Options dialog. -search <term> Search <term> with your default search engine. -setDefaultBrowser Set this app as the default browser.
That feature is coming in Firefox 67. It may be available right now in the Fx 66 Beta / Developer Edition.
Both Profiles will be separate from one another, and since Sync works at the Profile level different Sync / Firefox Accounts can be used.
That feature is coming in Firefox 67. It may be available right now in the Fx 66 Beta / Developer Edition. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/dedicated-profiles-firefox-installation Both Profiles will be separate from one another, and since Sync works at the Profile level different Sync / Firefox Accounts can be used.


I am trying to update my NHs number generator for the current version of the data generator but the generator tool refuses to recognise my module. It has been placed in C:\Program Files (x86)\Red Gate\SQL Data Generator 2\Generators and compiled to DotNet2.
Is there anything I have done wrong in the code below? The code is a simple class library initially based on the Basic library but when that didn't work either, used elements of the full example.
/// Helper function to generate valid NHS numbers.
// Do a last sanity check to stop invalid checkdigit numbers coming through.
/// Determines whether the specified expression is numeric.
///    <c>true</c> if the specified expression is numeric; otherwise, <c>false</c>.
As long as the class inherits GeneratorBase and is compiled referencing the same DLLs as the ones in your SQL Data Generator program folder, and is copied to the generators folder, SDG should pick the generator up. In your case it should show up under the category "generic".
What did you do differently because I notice it was 1/2k larger than my previously compiled version?
I'm not sure because I haven't seen your DLL but I assume it's the updated references.


I am about to transport 10 one pound containers of powder on a 1600 road trip. What are the safety issues I should be aware other like the obvious...like accident or the like.
Smokeless powder, or black powder?
This is an important distinction, because while black powder is an explosive (it blows up), modern smokeless powder is classified as a "propellant." It doesn't explode, it burns (rapidly). UPS and FedEx deliver large cases of smokeless powder all over the country, every day. If the containers are sealed (or tightly closed), my guess would be that you should just try to avoid extreme heat, and keep the powder away from sources of ignition.
Small quantities of smokeless powder in the factory containers are safe, however, it does burn intensely if ignited.
Not at only 10 pounds.
If you do not already have one, get a fire extinguisher for your car. It is a good thing to have in any case.


I'm running Thunderbird 31.6.0 on Windows 8.1.
Problem: many "hang-ups" or "Freezing". This happens often. Program is listed as "not responding" in the task manager. If I wait, often as long as 5 minutes, it usually comes back.
I have no third-party firewall or virus program, only what comes with Windows 8.1.
I am trying to add an exclusion folder to Windows Defender, and it cannot seem to 'see' the directories beyond Users/(Username). Any suggestions?
Try to start *Windows* in safe mode with networking enabled.
Still in Windows safe mode, start Thunderbird in safe mode.
Try to start *Windows* in safe mode with networking enabled. - Win8 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/windows-startup-settings-including-safe-mode - Win7 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Start-your-computer-in-safe-mode - XP http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/boot_failsafe.mspx Still in Windows safe mode, start Thunderbird in safe mode. - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/safe-mode Does the problem go away?
This appears to have been the problem - Thank you so much. I'll monitor it over the next day and make sure.
''finitarry [[#answer-729066|said]]'' <blockquote> http://www.ghacks.net/2009/05/19/fix-slow-or-hanging-thunderbird-email-client/ </blockquote> This appears to have been the problem - Thank you so much. I'll monitor it over the next day and make sure.
I've had the same issue with Thunderbird hanging constantly after Windows 10 upgrade. After a lot of troubleshooting, here is a solution that seems to have worked for me.
When Windows upgraded to version 10, the Windows Firewall was installed and activated automatically. Reviews said it was good, so I allowed it to run. As a troubleshooting step, I disabled Windows Firewall and installed Avast (free version). Since this step, I've had NO hangs in Thunderbird!
I'll add that I first downloaded beta version 40 of Thunderbird and had all kinds of problems, including graphics issues, hanging, total crashing, etc. I uninstalled v40 and clean installed v38.2.0.


Compile a list of the world’s top foodie destinations and it’s a pretty safe bet that Kenya wouldn’t make the cut. Up until now, the country has failed to gain any kind of glamorous status for its food culture, predominantly because traditional eats are created to be filling and inexpensive.
Staple meals like ugali – a doughy porridge made from maize flour rolled into balls and teamed with goat stew – are the go-to diet for locals. Side dishes might consist of irio – a mash of corn, beans, potatoes and greens – or leafy vegetable sukuma wiki (which means ‘to stretch the week’, signalling that it is generally affordable and available all year round).
So by these benchmarks, it’s understandable that Kenya isn’t occupying a top spot on the discerning foodie’s bucket list. But times are changing, and thanks to the capital’s flourishing diversity, there’s an exciting restaurant scene beyond the ugali.
Nairobi is home to a varied population of races, ethnicities and edible influences that are centuries old. As far back as 1496 the Portuguese landed on Kenyan shores bringing with them foods from Brazil such as pineapples and chillies. Later, with the arrival of more Europeans, came cucumbers and tomatoes. At the turn of the twentieth century the British enlisted thousands of Indians to build the railway line and so too arrived spicy dishes, chapattis and more.
A weekly go-to for locals and expats alike, Habesha has earned its reputation as the best Ethiopian restaurant in Nairobi through a combination of great service, a homely atmosphere and delicious food. The traditional Ethiopian cuisine is served with injera, a giant spongy flatbread that arrives on a silver tray filling the whole table. Accompanying dishes such as shiro (a smooth chickpea stew) and wat (spicy curry with a variety of spiced vegetables) are placed on top. The real charm, though, is in the setting as dinner is served around a rustic flaming fire pit.
Traditionally Indian and strictly vegetarian, Chowpaty is immensely popular with both vegetarian and carnivorous foodies, and championed by locals as offering ‘the best Indian food outside of India’. It’s a simple, no-frills place in terms of decor situated in Diamond Plaza – Nairobi’s answer to little India. But, frankly, looks don’t matter little when the food is this delicious. Try the dahi pouri – crunchy balls of spiced veggie goodness served with cool pouring yoghurt, to be scoffed whole. These little bundles of joy go excellently with the creamy mushroom tikka masala, a garlic naan and some cracking paneer. The best spot to soak up the atmosphere is from one of the outdoor street stalls.
Undisputed by many as offering some of the best food in Nairobi, Talisman promotes itself as an elegant gastrolounge situated in affluent Karen. The food – a fusion of European, Pan-Asian and African – is no doubt excellent; from the crispy feta and coriander samosas served with a gingery soy sauce to the blue cheese salad with a sweet maple dressing. The atmosphere is romantic and the outdoor seating tranquil with pretty surrounds. Though do avoid Friday nights when shady characters come out in droves and it becomes more sleazy pub than elegant bar.
Meaning ‘street’ in Thai, Soi is possibly Nairobi’s most gleamingly sophisticated restaurant. A new kid on the block that forms part of the DusitD2 hotel complex, it offers a funky, modern ambience with low-hanging carved wood lamps and cosy booths scattered with cushions. Expertly cooked dishes by the resident Thai chef include sweet papaya salad, crispy spring rolls, crunchy pak choi and zesty green curry. Going hungry is not an option as the portions are huge, so order lightly or expect to take home one heck of a doggy bag.
A charming little world-food restaurant, About Thyme is hidden in the woodland of Nairobi’s Westlands area. The menu here is diverse and imaginative, the dishes elegantly presented and the flavours top-notch. The best time to visit is Sunday brunch when you can enjoy the most popular item on the menu: baked eggs in a creamy spinach sauce, teamed with slices of crispy toast. Bag the square table with the comfy seats and puffy cushions in the shade.
An Aladdin’s cave of traditional African food, Le Palanka is proof that Kenyan food can be delicious. In fact, their menu encompasses influences from across the continent – from Kenya to Mali and Cameroon to the Ivory Coast and more. A popular favourite is the DJ curry – a sweet and spicy dish with the crunch of fresh vegetables. Traditional sides include fried plantain with a caramelised edge, West African jollof rice and sweet potato and plantain mash. The decor is traditional and full of colour, with giant fire pits, tented tables warmed by chimineas and a stone bar that looks like it’s straight out of the Flintstones.


Robots evolve altruism - The beginning of the end of the morality debate?
Came across this article on slashdot - Even Robots Can Be Heroes.
Here is a paragraph from the article.
Once the team was comfortable with the virtual evolution environment it had set up, it added a new twist: It allowed the robots to share food disks with each other. If Hamilton's hypothesis was correct, "successful" virtual robots were likely to be those that were closely related and shared food with each other; that would help to ensure that at least one of them -- and some of the genes of both—would make it to the next round. (Two robots with a modest amount of food disks would both be more likely to be cut from the simulation, but if one robot gave all of its food to a second robot, that second robot would likely make the next round.) And indeed, altruism quickly evolved in the simulation, with greater food-sharing in groups where robots were more related, the researchers report online today in PLoS Biology. The more closely related the robots, the quicker they cooperated. "It shows how general the [theory] is, whether you are an insect, a human or a robot," says Floreano.
I think that this is an amazing find. This could end the belief that morality is the domain of religion.
There are programs that make music.
Yeah, it's called Pop Music.


Let's say I compete in Poland and elsewhere in Europe with the model having POL – XXXX markings, representing my FAI license number assigned via Polish Aero-Club.
Will this model with this FAI number be accepted to enter the stunt competitions in Canada and the USA or I need to add, say, my MAAC number somewhere on the model?
In my understanding, FAI number is enough as it is recognized worldwide by the Aero-Clubs of all countries that belong to FAI.
I have not experienced any enforcement of AMA/MAAC numbering in recent decades.
With the almost-universal abolition of the BOM, models are openly bought, shared, and borrowed during contests.
Yes, if you participe an FAI event of 1st or 2nd category (world champs or world cup). But do they exist in f2b in US? I'm only aware of a WC racing event.
When I come to US for free flight contests (on Thursday! I need to join AMA, I guess that's because of some insurance stuff. I don't fully understand it as I fly in many countries and everywhere else my NAC membership and insurance is enough. But I'm not too interested to find out the whole story.
Maybe Bill L. or Norm F. could explain it..?
On the first, I haven't seen anyone ignore this in a stunt contest, and I probably go to more of them than most people.
On the second, borrowed/bought/shared airplanes have been legal in most stunt contests since about 1974. The BOM applies in that you have to have built the airplane to get appearance points, otherwise, you can still fly it anyway, just no appearance points.
I have never heard of anything like FAI-supplied insurance, so I don't know about that. I have never heard of anyone attempting to enter an AMA-sanctioned contest with *only* an FAI sporting license. If there was insurance associated with it, I could at least see how it could work, but if I had to guess, an FAI sporting license probably doesn't count for anything to the AMA. To be honest, I don't even know who you would ask at AMA HQ any more.
The real issue is showing up at a local contest and trying to use the FAI sporting license alone. Most CDs (although not all) are aware of the existence of the FAI, but I expect they would have the same problem I am having - they don't know if its OK or not.
In Matt's case, he should definitely use his MAAC number and MAAC license, since we know that is OK. For others, I really don't know.
FWIW. MAAC and AMA have a long standing reciprocal arrangement regarding insurance.
I am actually kind of curious about this, since I don't know, but I also don't know who to call any more at the AMA.
I and everybody else knows about that one, we love our hose-heads from the 51st state. I refer to other NACs, like Poland.
"Will this model with this FAI number be accepted to enter the stunt competitions in Canada and the USA or I need to add, say, my MAAC number somewhere on the model?"


The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between motivational characteristics and dispositional flow. in dispositional flow. The self-determined profile was more commonly associated with females, athletes practising individual sports and those training more than three days a week. The non-self-determined profile was more customary of males and athletes practising team sports as well as those 847559-80-2 manufacture training just two or three days a week. Key points The self-determined profile was characterized by high task orientation, high task-involving weather understanding and was more connected with females, athletes practising person sports activities and those teaching a lot more than three times weekly. The non-self-determined profile was seen as a high ego orientation, high ego-involving weather understanding and was more customary of men and sports athletes practising team sports activities aswell as those teaching several times weekly. Both profiles exposed a moderate inclination toward dispositional movement, without significant differences between your two profiles. The reduced low and self-determined non-self-determined profile had low scores upon all the variables in the analysis. Key phrases: Self-determination, motivational weather, goal orientation, movement Intro Inspiration is a extremely important object of research among workout and sports activities psychologists. Achievement Objective Theory (Nicholls, 1989) and Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985; 1991; 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000) are the most prominent current theories of motivation in the sport psychology literature and each has had considerable success in explaining motivational patterns in sport COLL6 settings. According to Achievement Goal Theory, individuals can define success according to different criteria that reflects two different perspectives. The first achievement goal perspective is self- referenced and reflects a task goal orientation in which individuals consider themselves to be successful when 847559-80-2 manufacture they have demonstrated personal improvement and have displayed effort. The second achievement goal perspective reflects a social comparison perspective in which success is considered to be realized when individuals demonstrate superior skills relative to others. Such a perspective is known as an ego orientation. At around the age of 12 years, these goal orientations tend to become consolidated in the individuals personality (Nicholls, 1989). Coaches can be important influences in shaping the achievement goal orientations of athletes. Their influence can be reflected in the manner in which coaches respond during training sessions and competition with regards to the implicit and explicit reactions that they offer with regards to the coachs personal definition of achievement. A trainer can either personal improvement and work in job execution prioritise, which would reveal a task-involving weather or provide more importance to successful and the demo of a larger capability than others, which become would reflective of the ego-involving weather. Self-Determination Theory establishes different motivational types along a continuum. As a result, people could be unmotivated (amotivation) or can range in personal- dedication from much less self-determined to more self-determined. Amotivation identifies too little purpose or the lack of motivation and then the involvement may very well be disorganised and associated with frustration, dread or depressed emotions (i.electronic. I dont think my place is within sport). For the self-determination continuum there are many points for the continuum that distinguish between people in their degrees of self-determination. Exterior regulation identifies from the purpose to participate to realize external bonuses (i.e. I really do sports activities for the prestige to be an sportsman). Introjected rules reflects inspiration dictated from the desire in order to avoid culpability also to minimize anxiety feelings (i.e. I must do sports 847559-80-2 manufacture to feel good about 847559-80-2 manufacture myself). In the case of identified regulation, the activity is more important for the individual although s/he doesnt carry out this activity because of its inherent pleasure, but as a means of achieving a goal,.


The staff is very friendly, it's very clean, and the meals are good.
They have had changes with the staff recently, and I have seen good improvements. The staff is very friendly, it's very clean, and the meals are good. It does not matter when you visit as it is always the same.


The LRO spacecraft was the prime choice to test out the novel communication method because the spacecraft was already equipped with a laser receiver. While most spacecraft exploring the solar system today are tracked using radio signals, NASA is tracking LRO via lasers as well.
But the timing had to be just right.
NASA used its Next Generation Satellite Laser Ranging station at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., to send the Mona Lisa signal to LRO. The team divided the famous da Vinci painting into sections measuring 150 by 200 pixels and then transmitted them via the pulsing of the laser to the orbiter at a data rate of about 300 bits per second.
Once the lunar orbiter received the image, it reconstructed the photo, corrected for distortions created as the laser signal zipped through Earth's atmosphere, and then sent the image back to Earth using its normal form of communication: radio waves.
"This pathfinding achievement sets the stage for the Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration," Richard Vondrak, another researcher with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter said, "a high data rate laser-communication-demonstrations that will be a central feature of NASA's next moon mission, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust environment Explorer."
The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer is slated to launch toward the moon later this year and will focus on mapping the lunar atmosphere and environment.


Forty years ago, at the inaugural Kennedy Center Honors, the five artists feted were an opera diva, one of the premiere songwriters of Broadway, a master choreographer, one of the greatest pianists of all time, and probably the greatest dancer in film history.
For this year, the Kennedy Center honored one ballet dancer, two pop music songwriters, a television writer/producer who uses his programs to further his own political agenda, and a rapper.
If anyone can make the case for LL Cool J being in the same league as an Arthur Rubenstein, Fred Astaire, Marian Anderson, Count Basie, Lucille Ball, Sammy Davis, Jr., Maria Tallchief, Ella Fitzgerald, or Cary Grant, I'm more than happy to listen.
Before we continue, I think it's important to note that I have championed both Gloria Estefan and Lionel Richie being Kennedy Center Honorees. However, Ladies Love Cool James?
In the past few years, I have objected to the shifting of the Kennedy Center Honors from fine/'high' arts: ballet, theater, music, film, and television towards more 'pop' culture: rock/pop music (including whole groups) and talk show hosts. It's been a bit of a slippery slide, going from Richard Rodgers and Leonard Bernstein to Led Zeppelin and Sting. Now, I love Zeppelin, Sting and The Eagles, but I wouldn't put them in the same category with Lerner & Loewe or John Williams.
The 2017 Kennedy Center Honors was despite some controversy and a big push to attract more viewers via LL Cool J, both a remarkably stale affair and a bad example of how not to make a case for certain honorees, though not without some standout moments.
In order, Gloria Estefan, Norman Lear, LL Cool J, Carmen de Lavallade, and Lionel Richie were celebrated for their lifetime work (despite the fact that the youngest-ever Honoree, James Todd Smith, aka LL Cool J, is 49, which respectfully does not exactly fit into 'lifetime'). Various performers introduced a bit of a biographical sketch of the particular artist and there were tributes via musical performances or monologues by other well-and-not-so-well-known individuals.
For most of the special, the first three were done a great disservice by their presentations. Things started off badly when Eva Longoria saluted Estefan in a dress that showed an immense amount of cleavage. While the music was good, it is curious that in the musical performance segment, the production decided to perform two songs Estefan did cover versions of (Turn the Beat Around and Everlasting Love) rather than her own compositions (Coming Out of the Dark would have been a great moment, but if memory serves correct, not played). The title song from her Spanish-language album Mi Tierra was, and performed badly.
I've not heard of Becky G, but I though her singing was terrible, and her wardrobe looked like she was honoring Selena more than Gloria. Further, the Kennedy Center Honors didn't properly acknowledge that the performance was connected to her jukebox musical: On Your Feet! For all the audience knew, they were just doing a medley of her greatest hits (and covers), not seeing people who were doing a Broadway show. This is even stranger considering that two past Honorees: Billy Joel and Carole King, also had jukebox musicals but in their salutes, they had greater recognition (King had her whole salute bookended by Beautiful: The Carole King Musical).
In what might be the night's most unintentionally hilarious moment, Queen Latifah's salute to LL Cool J stated, "Tonight, we honor LL for his contributions to our culture, that began with him banging on the garbage can on the corner of Farmers Boulevard". Somewhere in that statement, there's a metaphor.
The clip reel did not make the case as to why LL Cool J is that important in terms of overall culture or impact on it, and his 'contributions to our culture' are apparently that he's well-built, a good husband and father, the films Toys and Any Given Sunday, and his long-running stint on NCIS: Los Angeles.
Despite the constant urging of the DJ and rap performers, apparently only Anthony Anderson stood to celebrate weak renditions of Mama Said Knock You Out, the only song I actually recognized. If the clip reel is to be believed, that song was about knocking out drugs and teenage pregnancy, not dissing on other rappers and proclaiming LL's own return (I can't call it a comeback). I love Busta Rhymes, but I don't think his gravelly voice was the best to belt out Mama Said Knock You Out.
I do wonder why MC Lyte could not be persuaded to perform I Need Love or Around the Way Girl or Doin' It. My guess is that at least the first two are from a male perspective, but nothing says she could not take ownership of them.
The presentation of Norman Lear, the oldest-ever Kennedy Center Honoree, sandwiched between Estefan and J, was perhaps the worst, but not because the presentation itself was bad or because he isn't worthy of recognition. As a digression, I confess to having seen only one of Lear's programs: The Jeffersons. The only other Lear program I heard about as a child was One Day at a Time, but that was only because my mother referred to it as 'the show where the mother has an affair with the plumber'. Whether Ann and Schneider ever did have a fling I leave to any fan-fiction (something I don't think existed at the time).
The presentation was bad because a good part of it wasn't devoted to his actual television work, but to his creation of People for the American Way, his left-wing advocacy group. Was Lear being honored for his body of work on television or for his political activism? This isn't like when Danny Kaye was honored for his UNICEF work. To focus so much on Lear's PFAW to me is as ghastly as taking up time to salute Charlton Heston's NRA advocacy (which I don't think they did when he was honored).
Lear had already introduced politics into what should have been a nonpartisan event, but more on that later.
This year, despite the high-voltage names in the honoree box, the only ones that managed to make a case as to why they should be honored were Richie and, somewhat ironically, de Lavallade. I say 'somewhat ironically' because previous Honoree Meryl Streep admitted that few know who de Lavallade is.
The prima ballerina's tribute included a performance of Wade In the Water, choreographed by the late and legendary Alvin Ailey, and a performance by another prima ballerina, Misty Copeland, who respectfully acknowledged that as an African-American, she stood on de Lavallade's shoulders. These were beautiful and brilliant renditions of dance and showed how de Lavallade matters.
With Richie, we saw the scope of his songwriting and all the influences he has drawn from. That is what makes the criticism of the performances so strange to me. On 'the Twitter' many bashed the fact that country singer Luke Bryan performed two numbers: Penny Lover and Sail On. I suspect that what those complaining about were saying that a 'country' (read 'white') singer should not perform music from an R&B (read 'black') singer/songwriter.
You can criticize Bryan for a lot of things with regards to his own music or his singing, but to criticize him for performing two Richie covers is idiotic. Lady is a Richie song performed by country legend Kenny Rogers (who I think merits a Kennedy Center Honor of his own), and Stuck on You is a pretty solid country song. Furthermore, Bryan's generation embraces all types of music. One of Bryan's biggest hits, That's My Kind of Night, has him all but rapping himself and talks about listening to 'a little Conway, a little T-Pain', a mixtape I doubt either Conway Twitty or T-Pain would enjoy. Maybe That's My Kind of Night is an awful song, and maybe Bryan epitomizes the worst of 'bro-country', but to say Bryan 'shouldn't' sing Lionel Richie is to me irrational to the point of foolish.
Finally, on the political front, much was made of the fact that neither President Donald Trump or First Lady Melania attended, the first time either the President or First Lady skipped the event. This was done in response to Lear, then later de Lavallade and potentially Richie, boycotting the traditional White House presentation. This, to me, was a bad decision, showing that some performers cannot get over their disagreements.
Barbra Streisand attended despite being presented to former President George W. Bush.
Charlton Heston attended despite being presented to former President Bill Clinton.
All four rose above their personal grievances and politics to recognize the artistry and the Presidency. Granted, Trump is not my idea of a President, but he is the President, and it's time we got over that (and I say this as a charter member of Never Trump).
With the exceptions of de Lavallade and Richie, the Kennedy Center Honors did not make the case as to why these five individuals were worthy or recognition (LL Cool J the most dubious selection). Given how the Kennedy Center did not honor Maureen O'Hara or Peter O'Toole when they were alive, or Olivia de Havilland who is 101, it all seems so strange.
The fact that this was the lowest-rated Kennedy Center Honors in the twenty years they've kept records does not make this any easier.
Perhaps it's time to focus more on Emanuel Ax, Bernadette Peters and or Betty White than on Run DMC.


We’ve just read “Only Those Who Know God Can Bear Testimony to God.” This passage from God’s word clearly articulates how we can effectively bear testimony to God, how we can bear testimony to God according to His will and the conditions we must meet in order to bear testimony to God. What is the main focus of this passage? In order to exalt God and bear testimony to Him, we must understand the truth and know God. What is the purpose of this passage? It seeks to allow all of us who are willing to bear witness, who are willing to stand as good witnesses to God to pursue the truth and strive to know God. This is its most important purpose. Today we can see that many believers are willing to forsake everything to follow God. They are willing to do their duty to bear testimony to God, but why is God still disappointed? The majority of people do not possess the truth; they do not know God. Thus, even if they do their duties, they are not bearing testimony to God. Why do I say that even if they do their duties they are not bearing testimony to God? Because if you do not have the truth, you do not know God. Because if you do not know God, then isn’t talk of obeying God or satisfying God just empty speech? Some people say, “We have worked so hard and sacrificed everything to fulfill our duties. How are we still unable to bear testimony to God?” Without the truth, can you perform your duties up to His standards? Without the truth, will performing your duties be effective enough for you to bear witness to God? Without the truth, will your evangelism win anyone over? Without the truth, as a leader or worker, can you solve the problem of life entry for God’s elects? Without the truth, you cannot even speak of your own knowledge of God. In that case, how can you be truly obedient to Him? Therefore, without the truth, you cannot bear testimony to God. Even if you work hard to fulfill your duty, you will just be doing a service, you still won’t be working in accordance with God’s wishes. So, what does God command us to do? Pursue the truth and strive to know Him. If you fail to get to know God, whatever duty you do is of little value; it’s all just doing a service. You must understand this!
In the past, we have read God’s words about what it means to believe in Him. What does He say about it? “True faith in God means experiencing the words and work of God based on a belief that God holds sovereignty over all things. So you shall be freed of your corrupt disposition, shall fulfill the desire of God, and shall come to know God. Only through such a journey can you be said to believe in God.” Knowing God through experiencing His work, this is truly believing in God. If you believe in God for many years but are never able to know Him, then He will not consider you to be a true believer because you have not obtained the truth. To believe in God for many years but fail to know Him, this is the biggest failure of any believer! Believers often gather together and say things like, “What has been your greatest achievement during all your years of believing in God? What have you really gained from it?” When people first hear this question, they do not know how to respond. They’ll say something like, “The biggest thing I gained was understanding lots of truth. Unbelievers cannot obtain the truth. We understand many truths.” What do you gain from understanding the truth? You learn to know God. You get to know God, the Creator, a little bit because the truth originated from God. Is this not the main benefit of believing in God? Some other people say, “Getting to know God a little is the biggest benefit to believing in God. Believing in God causes one to endure so much hardship and persecution, and in the end you just get to know God a little bit better? Is that worth it?” Someone said it’s worth it. Why is it worth it? Because a true understanding of God becomes the truth and life that man has. That is the life from believing in God, which is eternal life, so it is the most valuable life of all. People earn eternal life, obtain the most precious, valuable life. Isn’t that worth it? If you acknowledge all of this, it’s definitely worth it. Obtaining life is more than worth it. What does it mean to obtain life? To obtain life is to truly know God. Truly knowing God will dramatically change a person. What will change? Some people may not be able to see these changes. When a person truly knows a bit about God’s disposition, God’s true essence and God’s almightiness, what is the first thing that happens to them? First, they obtain real faith. “God is real and eminently credible. God’s disposition is righteous, holy and worth of our praise! Additionally, God’s almightiness and wisdom cannot be measured by mortals. He is too omnipotent. He is the true Master of the universe, and everything is in His hands.” People who know God in this manner not only have true faith, but they also begin to treasure the truth, God’s disposition and God’s essence. As soon as they sense the true value of these qualities, as soon as they begin to treasure what God has and is, their life dispositions begin to change as well. What happens to them? Because to know God, His disposition and what He has and is are all part of the truth and are priceless, they feel their past pursuits and hobbies are worthless in comparison, so they automatically forsake them and lose all interest in them, much less continue to pursue them. They consider these things as worthless as dirt. They are willing to submit to God and follow God, are unwilling to leave God, and form an increasingly normal relationship with God. They enjoy the pursuit of God, the pursuit of the truth, the pursuit of justice, the pursuit of life in the light. Is this not evidence of a change in their life dispositions? As soon as their life dispositions change, they are able to see through the things that are pursued by the world and corrupt humans. They recognize that these things are worthless. Some people struggle to find a partner, but as soon as they know God, they say, “Partner? Who needs a partner? There are no loveable ones among the corrupt humans. I can live with or without them. It makes no difference.” Some people like money. As soon as they know God, they see that wealth is just an externality without much use. It is not life, and people who know God are able to set it aside. As far as hardship is concerned, they see hardship as having value and meaning, far better than wealth, because accepting hardship is a normal human quality. Because they are able to endure sufferings and distinguish between what to love and what to hate, they will select the proper path. Therefore, after men know God, their perspectives change. They are able to choose what God loves; they are able to choose the truth; they can choose to follow God and serve Him. This is all because of the changes in their life dispositions brought about by knowing God. Now, what can we learn from this? If you do not know God, you will not be able to truly change your life disposition. You can’t give up things like carnal pleasures or carnal pursuits on a whim. You can’t betray the flesh just because you want to. If you want to put them aside, you need to know God. You must know God before you can be freed of your corruption. You must know God before you can choose the truth or the right path. Therefore, you must know God to have life. Men must obtain true life, must obtain the truth which will give them life, in order to forsake the flesh, willingly do their duty to carry out God’s will, and accept suffering. With life as your motivation and life as your source, there’s nothing you can’t do.
In the past, many people used to say, “I understand all truth, but I cannot practice the truth.” What’s the problem here? They know the truth but cannot practice it. Why is that? Practicing the truth isn’t exciting or motivating to them because they do not know God. They seem to understand the truth, but they only have a shallow understanding. They don’t really know God, so they have no strength to practice the truth. Well, to what extent must you understand the truth in order to obtain the motivation of life, forsake the flesh and act according to the principles of the truth? Is a shallow understanding of letters and doctrines sufficient? You say you understand the whole truth. In reality, you do not understand any truth. If you really understood the truth, you would know God. As soon as I listen to your words, I can tell you do not know Him. If you do not know God, then isn’t your professed understanding of the truth false? Understanding the superficial aspects and doctrines of the truth, is that understanding the essence of the truth? No. So, what does it mean to understand the truth? It means you have known God. Isn’t the truth you understand all that God has and is? What is the true essence of the truth? What is the source of the truth? The truth is derived from the words of God and His divine life. Then, what is the true essence of the truth? How precious is the truth? How lovely is it? What is its value? If you obtain the truth, what can you live out? How will it change you? To know the answers to these questions is to truly understand the truth. Some people think understanding some spiritual words and doctrines means they understand the truth. These people are absurd. They’re taking a far too shallow perspective on this.
God’s word says, “It is heaven’s law and earth’s principle to believe in God and know God, and today—during an age when God incarnate personally does His work—is a particularly good time to know God.” What does that mean, “a particularly good time to know God”? God becomes flesh and comes down to earth to do His work and speak. People may encounter Him; they can listen to His words themselves. Additionally, they can see what He does, how He saves people through His work, how He judges and chastises people by the word, how He expresses the truth to free mankind from their preconceived notions, how He prunes and deals with men and saves them from their corruption. All these are ways in which we can experience God’s guidance, shepherding and watering in the flesh, and through these experiences, we shall ultimately know Him. If you can know God through Christ in the flesh, this is the best way. It’s the chance of a lifetime. Why do I say it’s the chance of a lifetime? Such opportunities are extremely rare and there are only two since God created this world—His first incarnation and His second incarnation in the last days. The first time He was incarnated, He did not fulfill His work of “the Word appearing in the flesh.” He was mainly focused on the redemptive work instead of expressing the truth to purify and save mankind. This time He comes back in the flesh during the last days is the best chance for humanity to know God. During the Age of Grace, when God became flesh, He only made one person perfect; only Peter truly knew Jesus. During the last days, God becomes flesh to make many more men perfect, that is to say, a group of people, a group of overcomers. These overcomers get to know the practical God; they can bear witness to the practical God. This is the work that God will accomplish during the last days. Some people may ask: “Then, what does it really mean to understand the practical God?” Look at how Peter knew the Lord Jesus. If we fully communicate that passage of God’s word, we will instantly understand.


The Auckland Council intends to prepare a management plan covering all local parks within the Hibiscus and Bays local board area. Prior to that action commencing the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) requires all reserve lands within the local board area to be suitably classified in terms of that Act.
Classify pursuant to Section 16(1) of the RA, the existing reserves described in Schedule Two for the reserve purposes set out in that Schedule.
Should any person wish to discuss any of the proposals, they can contact Dafydd Pettigrew on (09) 30101010.
Submissions on any of the proposals should state if the submitter wishes to be heard.
Any submitter should state in their submission if the whole or any part of the submission or objection is to be kept confidential, and the reasons.
However, any information provided to the council will become subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and may be released by the council under that Act.


Q: What are some of the differences between the events in this movie and in The Iliad?
Q: During the sacking of Troy, Glaucus yells that they'll make "the boatman" wait longer -- what is he talking about?
I'm sick of all the bad reviews for this movie. I really don't give a damn if it's true to the Iliad or not. The movie is extremely entertaining. I really like the fact that the gods are downplayed in this movie. It makes the story a lot more realistic. The acting was good. The story was good. The dialogue was good. The action scenes were good. I really can't see what's not to like in this movie. I guess I could pick it apart and find flaws, but I could do that with every movie ever made. For those upset by the fact that there was no definite good side or bad side, I have some shattering news. In war, there is never a good side or bad side. War is all subjective depending on whose side you are on. Every side thinks they are the good guys. A lot of people were upset about Paris, who is cast as a coward, becoming heroic in the end. Like it or not, we all have cowardliness and heroism within us. We just don't like to admit it. So, ignore the critics and watch this movie. Remember, critics have an opinion just like everyone else and as the old saying goes, opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one and a lot of them stink. You don't have to agree with me, but don't let someone else make up your mind for you either.


Being a group hinges entirely on whether the L factor is 1, and Lorentz tried to prove this in 1904 but his attempt was convoluted and not persuasive. Poincare said in his 1905 summary that L must be 1 because that's what's needed to be a group, which he said was a different proof than Lorentz's, but in his full 1906 paper he walked this back, having realized (or been told, perhaps by Lorentz?) that you can't prove it's a group by assuming it's a group. So in 1906 Poincare just presents the full transformation, with indeterminate L, and then says if L=1 they form a group, but doesn't offer any proof that L=1. Einstein easily proved L=1 by isotropy, so the transformations form a group. Of course, he presented the tran in standard form along x axis, but with the understanding that this can be composed with spatial rotations (which obviously form a group) to give Lorentz trans in any direction, so they all trivially form a group, given that the parallel boosts do.
On covariance, you are conflating general covariance with Lorentz covariance. The issue in 1905 was full Lorentz covariance, which Lorentz failed to achieve, and which Einstein achieved in his 1905, and which Poincare (correcting Lorentz) described in 1906, but only for Lorentz's local coordinates. Please note that the issues involving general covariance that occupied Einstein during the development of general relativity in later years are different. We're talking here about Lorentz covariance.
"Einstein always claimed that he had not seen Lorentz's 1904 paper, but no one believes him."
No one? The literature abundantly contradicts your claim. Many scholars accept Einstein's recollection about this. Indeed there is internal evidence that Einstein never did read Lorentz's 1904 - at least not carefully.
"He was even cagey about whether he had read Lorentz's 1895 paper."
Not true. He plainly said he had read Lorentz's 1895 paper.
"Poincare showed covariance of Maxwell's equations... Minkowski was much more explicit about it in his 1907 paper..."
As Einstein later said, Minkowski's contribution was to give a formalism that makes Lorentz covariance of a physical law manifest. No new physics, just a very useful mathematical formalism.
"Minkowski was much more explicit about it in his 1907 paper that cites Poincare's Palermo paper."
Your words there imply that Mikowski cited Poincare for the formalism, but you know that he did not.
"The Lorentz group and the covariance of Maxwell's equations are right at the core of what we call special special relativity..."
But you've missed the big picture. The second part of Einstein's paper (on electrodynamics) was just an example. The first part (the kinematic part) showed that Lorentz covariance applies to everything, not just electromagnetism. Einstein shows that the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell's equations (which he already knew could not claim complete validity, due to photo-electric effect, etc). This is because Einstein wasn't describing a theory of the ether in Galilean space and time (as Lorentz and even Poincare were), he was describing a theory of the fundamental measures of space and time.
"and these concepts are almost entirely due to Lorentz, Poincare, and Minkowski... Einstein contributed nothing to these concepts..."
I think if you study a bit more your opinion will change.
I did not mean to imply that Minkowski credited Poincare for anything substantial. Minkowski tried to hog all the credit for himself. I just meant to show that Minkowski read and relied on that Poincare Palermo paper, even if no one else did.
I thought that I read somewhere that Einstein used a library that subscribed to all the major journals, including the one with Poincare's 1905 short paper. But I do not have the reference.
Yes, Einstein gets credit for getting L=1 and other formulas correct. He just did not advance the field any, as Lorentz and Poincare had already come to that conclusion.
On covariance: If the fields are properly presented as tensors, then a spacetime transformation like a Lorentz transformation implies a transformation of the fields. That is what allows special relativity to be a spacetime theory. Minkowski explained this clearly. Poincare was not so clear about it, but that is what he was doing. Einstein just did the same thing Lorentz did.
Yes, Einstein has sections on kinematics, where Lorentz transformations change space and time. But how is that any difference from what Lorentz said? What was new? Lorentz's transformation changed space and time also.
I will post on the aether separately.
The banal cite proves he read it, but the absence of any substantive cites does not support that "he relied on it". The hyperbolic rotations, invariant quadratic form, and sqrt(-1) are all things that someone like Minkowski was very well prepared to notice on his own, as could any other competent mathematician. Look, when Heisenberg discovered quantum mechanics with the mysterious (to him) recipe for multiplication of operator arrays, and his advisor Born said "Hey, that's just matrix multiplication", did we say Born discovered quantum mechanics, and Heisenberg contributed nothing? That's just as absurd as your claim that Einstein contributed nothing because other showed it could be expressed in a 4D formalism.
> had already come to that conclusion.
No, Lorentz had not given a satisfactory proof of L=1 in 1904, and Poincare didn't in 1906 (he just assumed it). Einstein did in 1905.
> implies a transformation of the fields.
The use of tensors is not essential. That's just a math tool. Newton used synthetic geometry to derive his results in Principia and found modern science. Einstein's 1905 was the first to show the Lorentz covariance of electrodynamics, as an example of how the new kinematics allows us to determine the behavior of any physical system in motion if we know its behavior at rest.
The "this" here is the 4D formalism (like Born's matrices). Yes, Minkowski explained this formalism clearly. Poincare didn't. By the way, Minkowski, not a physicist, concludes with the words "The validity of the world postulate is... the true nucleus of an electromagnetic image of the world..." You see, he was still thinking of the electromagnetic theory, not realizing that there must be other forces, and that the kinematics apply to all.
> Einstein just did the same thing Lorentz did.
Both Einstein and Lorentz strongly disagreed with that opinion. To the end of is life, Lorentz did not endorse the Einstein's radical spacetime approach, although he said we should be grateful that Einstein held to that radical view, because otherwise he would never have conceived of his beautiful theory of gravitation.
Lorentz still believed that inertial coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, even after he added to his long list of assumptions the final assumption that mechanical inertia itself must be Lorentz invariant. At that point he should have realized the implications, but he didn't. He clung to the idea of an absolute true time foliation, partly (as he admitted in a letter to Einstein) for spiritual reasons. You can read about this in any good book on the history and foundations of relativity.
Whenever there is a big advance, there can be disagreements as to how much to credit the experimentalists, theorists, and mathematicians. You seem eager to discount the mathematical work. Okay, that is fine, but Einstein's work was trivial in all three views. He did no experiments, and paid little attention to experimental results. His work had no theoretical consequences over what Lorentz did. And his math was simplistic and narrow compared to Poincare's and Minkowski's.
Einstein took Lorentz's principle that the speed of light is constant and Poincare's relativity principle, and showed that the Lorentz transformations could be derived from those. This is essentially a mathematical result of little significance, except that some found it to be an appealing way to tie together some known principles. That's all. If he had called it Lorentz's theory and written a textbook, he would only be credited with a novel expository presentation of existing theory.
Your comments are bewildering. The simplicity and clarity of Einstein's approach is part of what made his contemporaries see it as so brilliant. The objectiue here is not to exhibit mathematical virtuosity, it is to discern the simple principles and symmetries of nature. As Born said, the studies of the electron and electrodynamics had devolved into a baroque thicket of excessively complicated mathematics leading no where, and Einstein showed that all the questions could be answered and conflicting principles reconciled, not just for electrodynamics, but for all physical phenomena, by just elementary reasoning about the actual meanings of our measures of space and time. This led directly to the modification to Newton's laws of mechanics as described in Einstein's paper. This is why his contemporaries recognized that "A new Copernicus is born!" Ironically, in Poincare's 1906 paper he prophesized that just such a thing might happen.
It appears to me that you aren't looking at either the actual scientific papers or the historical record objectively. The reasoning in Einstein's papers, both on relativity and on quantum theory, was so impressive to his contemporaries that he was catapulted from the Swiss patent office to the front ranks of the world's physicists, with an appointment to the new institute created for him (at the urging of Planck, Nernst, and others) at Berlin in 1914. Your claim that he was just composing expositions of other people's ideas is grotesquely perverse.
By the way, in his 1905 paper he DID call it Lorentz's theory ("we have the proof that, on the basis of our kinematical principles, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity").
By 1914, relativity had made it into textbooks, and Poincare and Minkowski were dead. If Belin wanted to hire a relativity expert, then Einstein was a reasonable choice. Maybe Planck and Nernst did not understand what Poincare had done, and thus overcredited Einstein.
Those textbooks probably had a simplicity and clarity that was better than Einstein's, so the readers were impressed with the theory.
My question: Why the eagerness to overcredit Einstein, such as by calling it Einstein's relativity, while denigrating the contributions of Lorentz, Poincare, and others? No one says "Heisenberg's quantum mechanics" and badmouths the work done by others. This is no comparable situation in the history of science.
The record shows that these pieces were done by others: Michelson-Morley experiment and analysis, FitzGerald contraction, Larmor time dilation, Lorentz transformation, relativistic mass, local time, Poincare synchronization, constant speed of light, relativity principle, rejection of aether motion, Lorentz corresponding states for Maxwell's equations, 4D spacetime, 4-vectors, 4D tensors, electromagnetic covariance, world lines, interpretation as a measurement theory, invariants of the Lorentz group, relativistic gravity, etc.
To credit Einstein, you have to somehow concede that all these parts were done by others, but there was some magic step that Einstein did that was more important than all those other things.
What was that? At best you can say that he simplified Lorentz by replacing some deductions with postulates, or that his exposition influenced Planck and others, or that he independently rediscovered what others had already published, or that his paper was more accessible because he postponed Maxwell's equations until section 6.
By my count, Einstein mentioned Lorentz 3 times in his famous 1905 paper.
"Maybe Planck and Nernst did not understand what Poincare had done, and thus overcredited Einstein."
But by now your thesis is in shambles. It wasn't just Planck and Nernst, it was Rubens, Warburg, Laub, Born, Laue, Sommerfeld, Wein, Stark, Larmor, Lorentz, Minkowski, Loria, Witkowski, etc., and even Poincare himself. Your thesis is that Einstein was not perceived by contemporary physicists to have made an important and original contribution, even though every contemporary physicist explicitly said that they perceived Einstein to have made an important and original contribution. Surely it's time to retire this thesis.
Thanks to his papers in theoretical physics, Einstein already achieved a worldwide reputation at a young age within the circle of scientists working in his specialty. His name became most widely known thanks to the principle of relativity, laid down in his famous paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), according to which the contradiction between Lorentz's otherwise extremely well proved theory of the stationary ether and the experimentally verified fact that electrodynamical-optical processes involving terrestrial bodies are independent of Earth's motion has its radical explanation in the circumstance that an observer moving with the Earth uses another way of measuring time than an observer at rest in the heliocentric system. The revolutionary consequences of this new conception of time, which extend to the whole of physics, first of all also to mechanics, and beyond that deep into epistemology, were subsequently formulated by the mathematician Minkowski in a way that gives the whole system of physics a new unified character, in that the dimension of time appears in it as completely equivalent with the three spatial dimensions."
Should Poincare's 1906 paper be mentioned here? Minkowski said he was shocked when he saw Einstein's paper, because it scooped him of the great discovery, even though he had been working on a 4D formulation of Lorentz's theory for a few years. He was not shocked by Poincare's paper.
"No one says Heisenberg's quantum mechanics"
Huh? Heisenberg is fully acknowledged as the first discoverer of quantum mechanics.
"..there was some magic step that Einstein did..."
Right, Einstein was the first to recognize clearly that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations. This was revolutionary. You can dress it up in 4D formalism, but the fundamental insight was Einstein's.
So Planck and Nernst exaggerated a little to get Einstein into 1913 Berlin Academy of Science. Specifically, this letter seems to credit Einstein for inventing local time for the purpose of resolving the contradiction between Lorentz's theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment. And that this was important until Minkowski figured out a much better way to do it a couple of years later.
Do you really want to defend this? They are crediting Einstein for what Lorentz did in 1895. That Lorentz paper resolved most of the contradiction, with the second-order effects being pointed out by Poincare, and resolved by Lorentz in 1904.
Lorentz got the Nobel Prize in 1902 for his electrodynamics, and the nomination (tho not the award) specifically cited inventing local time to resolve this contradiction.
In a literal sense it is true that Einstein's "name became most widely known thanks to the principle of relativity, laid down in his famous paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905)". But Einstein was just copying this principle, as articulated by Poincare and Lorentz during 1895-1904.
What you don't have is someone acknowledging what Lorentz and Poincare did, and explaining how Einstein did something original or better.
Yes, Heisenberg is credited, along with others. But people do not personify the theory with Heisenberg the way they personify relativity with Einstein.
"So Planck and Nernst exaggerated..."
It seems to me there are three legs to your anti-Einstein stool, first that his contemporaries didn't perceive any original advance in his writings, second that modern scholars don't perceive any significant original advance in his writings, and third that the writings themselves show that Einstein made no significant original advance.
The first leg of the stool has been demolished, by exhibiting quotes from many of the most well-positioned physicists of the day. ("Read Einstein's paper! A new Copernicus is born!") But in every case, you simply dismiss the evidence, with an excuse like "well, they were just exaggerating", or "well, they didn't really mean it", or some such.
The third leg of your stool is that the actual papers show that Lorentz (1904) was Ptolemy, Einstein (1905) did nothing, and Poincare (1906) was Copernicus and made the crucial breakthrough to special relativity, with some subsequent elaboration by Minkowski (1907), who tried to hog the credit. This stool is shown to be wrong by examining the actual papers. The crucial insight was that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which Einstein (1905) clearly shows, but which is absent from Lorentz's 1904 and from Poincare's 1906.
So, it appears to me that your anti-Einstein stool has no legs at all.
"...cited inventing local time to resolve this contradiction."
But Lorentz's view of local time is specifically NOT special relativity. He said himself "The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time, and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same role as t."
This was the key step from Ptolemy to Copernicus.
> how Einstein did something original or better.
Well, this is a complicated historical question, because the "theory of relativity" that first became popular throughout the world was general relativity with the eclipse expedition, etc. Despite the obvious canards that you will undoubtedly trot out (Riemann, Grossman, Hilbert, blah blah blah) every serious scholar, and every contemporary physicist, knows (and knew) that general relativity was Einstein's theory (even though it arguably isn't a theory of relativity at all, but that's a separate discussion). Also, even for special relativity, Einstein's 1905 papers (June and Sept) followed by some 1906 and 1907 papers, especially on the momentum flows of energy, were so thorough and comprehensive that they were perceived as forming a completed axiomatic "system", from which many theorems could be derived, but the system itself was perceived as complete. With quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's first paper after his bout of hay fever wasn't such a mature presentation of a completed system. This shouldn't be surprising, because Einstein's theories were the *completion* of classical physics, whereas Heisenberg's was just the initiation of non-classical physics. Newton's physics was really the culmination of many insights of predecessors and successors, but we still refer to Newtonian physics. Get over it.


What is the maximum sound pressure level that a dynamic microphone can handle without distortion?
Microphone users often ask "What is the maximum sound pressure level that a dynamic microphone can handle without distortion?" Using the Shure SM58 as an example of a typical dynamic microphone, Shure Engineering performed experiments to answer this question. Like most technical matters, the answer is not simple.
As a point of reference, 140 dB SPL is the accepted threshold of pain for the human ear. The maximum sound pressure level (max SPL) from a human voice as measured by Shure is 135 dB SPL at 1 inch from the mouth. A kick drum played very loudly may exceed 140 dB SPL, but has never been measured by Shure above 150 dB SPL. The loudest orchestral instrument, a trumpet, can theoretically produce a MAX SPL of 155 dB SPL at 1 inch, but only in its upper register. Note that the distribution of energy (sound pressure) in speech, music, and noise is dependent on the frequency. For example, the human voice does not produce much energy below 100 Hz and its frequency of MAX SPL would be higher than 100 Hz. Exactly how much higher depends on the individual voice.
Unlike a condenser microphone which has internal electronics that may overload, a dynamic microphone distorts when its diaphragm hits a physical barrier, like the magnetic pole piece, and can move no further. The excursion of the diaphragm is frequency dependent and the excursion is greatest at the resonant frequency of the diaphragm. Therefore, the MAX SPL of a dynamic microphone like the SM58 is frequency dependent. This means that low frequencies will produce distortion at a lower SPL than higher frequencies.
For the SM58, the frequency range to first exhibit distortion is centered around 100 Hz, close to the resonant frequency of the microphone's diaphragm. At 100 Hz, the measured MAX SPL is 150 dB SPL and the electrical output of the microphone is 0 dB V or 1.0 volts. Note this is a line level signal, not a mic level signal.
In the 1 kHz range, the SM58 measured MAX SPL is about 160 dB SPL due to the change in microphone sensitivity at the higher frequencies. The electrical output of the microphone at 160 dB SPL is +10 dBV or 3.2 volts.
In the 10 kHz range, 180 dB SPL is the MAX SPL of the SM58. However, this is a calculated measurement as Shure Engineering had no means to create such enormous and dangerous SPL. For comparison, NASA reports that a space shuttle launch measures 180 dB SPL and higher at 10 meters.
In the 20 kHz range, the MAX SPL is calculated to be around 190, due to the response falloff of the SM58. But now the point of absurdity has been reached because at 194 dB SPL the sound pressure varies from twice normal atmospheric pressure (at the wave peak) to a total vacuum (at the wave trough). Plus the sound source must be moving at the speed of sound just to generate a wave of this intensity.
In summary, a well-designed dynamic microphone of professional quality will never reach its distortion point in "normal" conditions. If one does encounter distortion when using a professional dynamic microphone for an extremely loud source, it is most likely that the electrical output of the microphone is clipping the input of the microphone preamplifier. [Remember that at 150 dB SPL, the SM58 will provide a line level output!] To solve this problem, an in-line attenuator ("pad") must be placed before the preamplifier input, or the microphone must be moved farther from the sound source. In general, the sound pressure level will decrease 6 dB for each doubling of the distance.


View question - Triangle's sides are a=5 b=12 and c=9. What is the area of the triangle?
Triangle's sides are a=5 b=12 and c=9. What is the area of the triangle?
Area = √[s*(s-a)*(s-b)*(s-c)] where a, b and c are the lengths of the sides and s = (a+b+c)/2.