Has there ever been a peaceful overthrow of a dictator or monarch?

Question: Has there ever been a peaceful overthrow of a dictator or monarch? By peaceful I mean without assassination, military coup, major violent protests, killing of civilians, war, etc. The closest thing I can think of is during the Glorious Revolution of England, but there were still some lives lost.
Comment: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/101506/discussion-on-question-by-pers0nz-has-there-ever-been-a-peaceful-overthrow-of-a).
Comment: Pakistan has had many instances. Ayub Khan, Musharraf etc.
Comment: How about on the death of the dictator? When General Franco died in 1975 Spain returned to its former monarchy under King Juan Carlos, and adopted a democratic constitution.
Answer: The abdication of King Edward VIII of United Kingdom in 1936 was achieved without any bloodshed and resulted in ascension and coronation of his brother George as King of the United Kingdom.
Although legally an abdication there is no doubt that his hand was forced by Parliament as well as Prime Ministers of several Commonwealth dominions.

On 16 November 1936, Edward invited British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to Buckingham Palace and expressed his desire to marry Wallis Simpson when she became free to remarry. Baldwin informed him that his subjects would deem the marriage morally unacceptable, largely because remarriage after divorce was opposed by the Church of England, and the people would not tolerate Simpson as queen. ....
The Prime Ministers of Australia (Joseph Lyons), Canada (Mackenzie King) and South Africa (J. B. M. Hertzog) made clear their opposition to the king marrying a divorcée; ....
It was clear that Edward was not prepared to give up Simpson, and he knew that if he married against the advice of his ministers, he would cause the government to resign, prompting a constitutional crisis. He chose to abdicate.

Assent of the Dominion Parliaments was required because the Statute of Westminster 1931 stated (my emphasis:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by
way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the
Crown is the symbol of the free association of the
members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and
as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown,
it would be in accord with the established constitutional
position of all the members of the Commonwealth in
relation to one another that any alteration in the law
touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style
and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of
the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom :

The Greek monarchy has twice been abolished (1924 and 1974) and replaced by a republic consequent to referenda on the issue in 1924 and in 1973.

In March 1815 Napoleon returned from Elba and overthrew King Louis XVIII, beginning The 100 Days.

Firing no shot in his defence, his troop numbers swelled until they became an army. On 5 March, the nominally royalist 5th Infantry Regiment at Grenoble went over to Napoleon en masse. The next day they were joined by the 7th Infantry Regiment under its colonel, Charles de la Bédoyère, who was executed for treason by the Bourbons after the campaign ended. An anecdote illustrates Napoleon's charisma. When royalist troops deployed to stop the march of Napoleon's force at Grenoble, Napoleon stepped out in front of them, ripped open his coat and said "If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am." The men joined his cause.
Marshal Ney, now one of Louis XVIII's commanders, had said that Napoleon ought to be brought to Paris in an iron cage, but on 14 March, Ney joined Napoleon with 6,000 men. Five days later, after proceeding through the countryside promising constitutional reform and direct elections to an assembly, to the acclaim of gathered crowds, Napoleon entered the capital, from where Louis XVIII had recently fled.

A popular rumour is that Louis fled in such a rush ahead of Napoeon that, when the latter sat down for dinner in the palace, the seat was still warm.
Comment: Not sure if Edward VIII's is a valid example of a peaceful **overthrow**, given that no one wanted him to actually abdicate. They just did _not_ want him to marry Mrs. Wallis Simpson, and expected him to comply. After all, who would give away their Crown, their Empire, for "love"? The fact that Edward did, came as a HUGE surprise. Peaceful? Yes. Overthrow? Nope.
Comment: People can be pleasured with outcomes that they weren't looking for. The options given to King Edward in 1936 were: either leave Wallis and keep Government's support, or marry Wallis and have the whole Government resign on you. [The abdication option was certainly not expected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis#Options_considered) and, **being that it was proposed by Kind Edward himself, it cannot be seen in any way as an "overthrow"**, however happy some people might have been after the fact.
Comment: There's a compelling argument that it wasn't "love" but Fascism: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n16/paul-foot/the-great-times-they-could-have-had
Comment: I don't think the example of Greece's 1973 referendum is relevant. The country was controlled by a [military junta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%931974) at the time and the plebiscite not only did not get rid of a dictator, it was used by a dictator to cement his control.
Comment: Could you make the case that Napoleon's case is not _exactly_ the peaceful overthrow of a dictator, but rather the replacement of one dictator with another?
Comment: You can hardly call Edward VIII a dictator, as you say, his hand was forced by Parliament, which is where the real power is.
Comment: @SamuelRussell: Yes, I know. I wrote [this answer](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/11526/when-did-australia-declare-war-on-germany-in-wwii) a couple of years back. Also did you mean "ascenstion" or "acceptance"?
Comment: Assent, damn phones. It was meant as a contribution to further emphasise your attention to the substantive processes of power being more important than the formal.
Comment: I don't think the last example with Napoleon (and many similar cases) qualify: it was still done under the threat of military force, even if an implicit threat. Overthrow? Yes. Peaceful? Nope.
Comment: Westminster didn't have full application due to lack of assent by, for example, Australia; but, the opinion of the white dominions were considered.
Answer: Murad V, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 30 May to 31 August 1876 was deposed by the Ottoman cabinet on the grounds of insanity.
The Grand Mufti (seyhulislam)

issued a fetva justifying the act on grounds of insanity, which was
  supported by a medical statement signed by several Istanbul physicians
  declaring that it was unlikely that Murat could ever recover. The next
  day all the notables assembled in the Imperial Council rooms of the
  Topkapi Palace. Murat was deposed, and all swore loyalty to Abdulhamit
  II as the new sultan.

Source: S. J. Shaw and E. K Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol II
Murad's condition subsequently improved, "leading him to dabble in politics" but he never regained the throne. He died in 1904. His uncle and predecessor Abdülaziz (featured in this photo identification question), had also been deposed peacefully by his ministers but may have been forced to commit suicide a few days after his deposition.

Demaratos (ruled circa 510 to 491 BC), one of the two Kings of Sparta, was deposed by the Ephors (5 annually elected magistrates) after they were persuaded that he was illegitimate.
His political opponent and fellow King Kleomenes I urged a royal rival of Demaratos, Leotychidas, to claim that Demaratos was illegitimate. Kleomenes then bribed the Delphic Oracle to achieve a ruling which led to the Ephors deposing Demaratos on the grounds that he was not the son of his predecessor, King Ariston.

Eric of Pomerania, King of Denmark and Sweden from 1396 to 1439 was deposed by the National Councils of Denmark and Sweden following a dispute over who should succeed him.

When the Danish nobility subsequently opposed his rule and refused to
  ratify his choice of Bogislaw IX, Duke of Pomerania as the next King
  of Denmark, King Eric left Denmark in response and took up permanent
  residence at Visborg Castle in Gotland, apparently as a kind of a
  "royal strike", which led to his deposition by the National Councils
  of Denmark and Sweden in 1439.

For good measure, Eric was later deposed as King of Norway by the Norwegian nobility. He turned to piracy to support himself and died in 1459.

The 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines led to the overthrow of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, largely through a series of huge peaceful demonstrations.
The army refused to fire on the demonstrators (although they did at first use tear gas) and Marcos was forced to flee the Philippines. Despite some military action against a TV station, there do not appear to have been any deaths. Filipinos were justly proud of what they achieved "without bloodshed".

Jose Parco, Aklan: The main achievement of people power was that we
  got rid of a despot in a very peaceful way. For the first time in
  ages, Filipinos were united to make a change for the better. We showed
  the world that we are a civilized people as there was no bloodshed. It
  also taught us the power of prayer!
Lydia Reyes, Bataan: The Edsa uprising was a peaceful revolt and yet
  it regained democracy in our country. That was the beauty of it.
Pedro Alagano, Vigan City: The beauty is that there was overwhelming
  euphoria in our country and Filipinos were hailed around the world for
  a bloodless revolution that toppled a dictator.
Cris Rivera, Rizal: It was supernaturally marvelous  a fight for
  freedom won not by bullets but by flowers and beads of prayers. The
  beauty of democracy unfolded.

As the demonstrations were preceded by a failed military coup and as tear gas was used at first, this may be considered borderline.
Comment: The People Power revolution was the one that lept to my mind. One of the things it showed was the importance in such protests of courting the army. Sadly, [despots have since learned to adapt](https://arabtyrantmanual.com/) by using paramilitary forces with more certain loyalties (and less moral scruples).
Comment: @T.E.D. Here's something else sad: Marcos' son denies and / or trivializes his father's crimes, but in the 2016 election he was almost elected Vice-President of the Philippines, losing by less than 1%. The current President, Duterte (the guy who thinks rape is a good topic for jokes), has repeatedly said he would resign in favour of Marcos Jn. if he was his Vice-President. Marcos Jn. has already faced numerous allegations of corruption, is big in fake news, and apparently 44% of his Twitter followers are fake. Yet there a big chance he will become president one day...
Comment: I have been keeping track of that, and it is sad. However, I'm kind of in a situation here in the US where I need to address the log in my own eye first before criticizing the splinter in others...
Comment: @T.E.D. I see your point!
Answer: In 1946, Italy held a referendum to change from being a kingdom to a republic.
The last king of Italy, Umberto II, left the country peacefully to live the rest of his life abroad. He also absolved all the soldiers and other civil servants from their oath of fealty to the king.
Answer: Queen Elizabeth II has been deposed many times and I guess holds the record for the most times someone has been deposed (peaceful or not).
This has happened many times when a former British colony became independent and, after a period of independence with the Queen as head of state, declared itself a republic with a president. Most of these did it peacefully with a referendum or election or just a declaration. This often happened several years after independence.
For example, from this list of Republics in the Commonwealth of Nations there are many who did it without any violence in relation to the change from the Queen as head of state to a presidential republic.
Examples:
Zambia (Oct 1964), Seychelles (1976), Botswana (Sept 1966), Gambia (independence Feb 1965, republic after a referendum April 1970), Ghana (independence March 1957, republic July 1960), Guyana (independence May 1966, republic Feb 1970), Malta (independence Sept 1964, republic Dec 1974), Sri Lanka (1971)
George VI was also deposed. India (Jan 1950).
Comment: @ubadub 'Several years' and deposing through referendum or election is not hair-splitting. My answer clearly respects the spirit and the letter of the question. Please check the examples I've given.
Comment: @ubadub Wrong. You're confusing fights for independence with the queen being replaced as head of state. In many cases, the queen was deposed several years after independence when many countries changed to republics. Please check the examples.
Comment: @ubadub I can't speak for all the examples cited but Ghana is a valid example. The transition to independence started shortly after WWII and was peaceful, with independence achieved in 1957 with Nkrumah as Prime Minister. In 1960, there was a referendum and Nkrumah replaced QEII as Head of State.
Comment: That seems like hair-splitting.
Comment: @Muz There are 15 Commonwealth Realms other than the United Kingdom.
Comment: For India, I think you mean George VI. But an interesting answer.
Comment: Fun fact: Queen Elizabeth II is still the monarch of Australia. Gaining independence doesn't necessarily mean that a country loses the colonial monarch.
Comment: "Most of these did it peacefully." Well that's not true. Can you name some examples? I can guarantee you won't find anything close to a majority which were peaceful.
Answer: Augusto Pinochet, after 15 years as the dictator of Chile, stepped out of power because on the 5th October 1988 he lost a referendum with about 44% of votes and he accepted that result.
Benito Mussolini fell from power after the Grand Council of Fascism passed a vote of no confidence on him. After that, he was dismissed by King Victor Emmanuel III.
Comment: Italians shot each other for several months. Both sides had foreign support but that cannot be counted as a peaceful transition. By that standard, the French revolution should count! There have been formal acts deposing the king and he was later executed for treason, not for being a king. Hardly within the scope of the OP.
Comment: The deposing of Mussolini started a civil war so I'd say it does not count. On the other hand a couple of years later King Umberto II left the country peacefully after the popular vote to transform Italy into a Republic.
Comment: I disagree. The deposing of Mussolini started a civil war because Hitler supported his former ally. As far as Italy alone is concerned, it can safely be described as a "peaceful overthrow of a dictator".
Comment: @Rad80 - Also, the lack of "confidence" in him almost certainly had something (everything) to do with the invading Allied army sitting in Italian territory (Sicily) gassing up their landing craft for the next go. So I wouldn't entirely call that non-violent.
Answer: The end of German Democratic Republic , a.k.a. East-Germany, was also quite peaceful. Prior to the German Reunification the GDR government applied some degree of oppression, yet the large-scale, peaceful protest made it quite hard to justify using force.
In the end, the GDR held its only free election which brought a government into power that more or less oversaw the reunification with the Feder Republic of Germany, a.k.a. West-Germany
Comment: I don't think Erich Honecker counts as a monarch...
Comment: @jcaron - originally the Q asked for "Monarch or Dictator".
Comment: @seven-phases-max Wasn't much of a dictator either. The GDR government certainly wasn't democratic in any meaningful way, but it wasn't a dictatorship in any meaningful way either.
Comment: @AlexanderKosubek The comments aren't the place to discuss this, but a dictatorship is classified by being ruled by one or multiple dictators. The GDR was an authoritarian and totalitarian state, but it was never ruled by dictators.
Comment: @Cubic So, what is a dictatorship, then? The GDR didn't have political competition but a single ruling party. Also human rights weren't worth the paper they were written on. - What more do you require to classify a regime as a dictatorship?
Comment: There is no good argument to distinguish the Eastern-European socialist totalitarian states (including East-Germany and other countries behind the Iron Curtain) from dictatorships. Those countries were dictatorships the same way as Cuba, China, Cambodia or the Soviet Union was. Just because some of the party leaders were less charismatic or well known or their prison camps were less numerous, it doesn't mean Honecker was less of a dictator than Stalin.
Comment: Note that by the time the GDR held that election, Honecker had fled to the Soviet Union. He had been deposed four months earlier (which also speaks to the point Cubic was making). The last leader trying to preserve an authoritarian GDR was probably Egon Krenz (I do not count Manfred Gerlach, nor obviously Lothar de Maizière). The whole process was in any case peaceful.
Answer: Alfonso XIII of Spain, in 1931
On April 12, 1931, there were municipal elections. One year earlier, on January 28, 1930, the dictator Primo de Rivera resigned1. That dictatorship was a weird one, with the king Alfonso XIII below it. Thus, the king kept in power for a while (in a so called dictablanda2). This kept going until the municipal elections on April 12, 1931, were held:

On 12 April, the republican parties won a landslide victory in municipal elections. The municipal elections were fought as a virtual referendum on the future of the monarchy. On 14 April, he fled the country as the Second Spanish Republic was proclaimed, but did not formally abdicate. He settled eventually in Rome.
Downfall and Second Republic, on the Alfonso XIII of Spain article in Wkipedia

1 Wikipedia on Primo de Rivera's fall from power
2 In Spanish, dictatorship is 'dictadura': 'dicta' + 'dura', where 'dura' means hard. So a dictatorship with less strength was called 'dictablanda': 'dicta' + 'blanda', where 'blanda' means soft.
Answer: Bavaria stands out here. Ludwig II, Otto I, Ludwig III all lost power quite peacefully.
Comment: @mathreadler Depends on what you mean by that. I'm sure he wasn't a bad guy to hang out with, but from all I ever heard about him he was pretty bad at being a King.
Comment: @Cubic Kings at time were expected to spend taxes on waging wars, not promote culture. He seems to have not followed that pattern. That is worthy of respect.
Comment: +1. Given description on wikipedia, Ludwig II seems like a quite awesome king, actually.
Answer: Pedro II of Brazil, November 1889
There was only an injured person in the event.

The only one wounded in the episode of the proclamation of the republic was the Baron of Ladario, minister of navy, who resisted the arrest warrant given by the mutineers and was shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Republic_(Brazil)
Answer: Norway, 1905
From 1814 to 1905 Norway and Sweden were two kingdoms ruled by the same king.
This king ruled from the Swedish capitol and many Norwegians were unhappy about the situation.
The two countries had separate Parliaments.
In June 1905 the Norwegian Parliament decided that enough was enough.  Out with the king!
In August there was a referendum in Norway which agreed.
In October the Swedish King and government accepted the situation and recognized Norway as independent.  The Swedish King renounced his claim to the Norwegian throne.
While the situation had been tense, no shots were fired.
(Norway then decided "OMG, we need a king!" and elected a Danish Prince for the job. But that is another story)
Longer version on Wikipedia.
Answer: Without going back that long in time, you have got the Carnation Revolution in Portugal
This is also interesting in the fact that the overthrow was led by the military.
Comment: There was some fighting, though, and a couple of ppl died.
Answer: In 1953, after a lot of effort king Leopold III of Belgium abdicated. Normally an abdication is voluntary. In this case, the king's behavior during WW2 forced him to abdicate. It took 8 years for him to make up his mind, so it wasn't quite as voluntary as it was presented.
Francisco Franco didn't abdicate, but restored in 1947 the monarchy upon his demise. Which was back then far away in the future: he died in 1975.
Two more cases of peaceful removal of monarchs/dictators.
Comment: Also, Franco remained in power until his death, so he was definitely not "overthrown".
Comment: And Franco needed much of that interim to find a willing king.  Juan Carlos was not his first choice.  Otto (Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary) turned him down, for example.
Comment: The Wikipedia article you link to says that Leopold III finally abdicated in 1951.
Answer: The resignation of (now) Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, allegedly because of ill health, has primarily been blamed on his self-perceived incapacity to deal with the strong resistance inside the Curia and the top clergy to reform and cleansing, including issues of sexual abuse that are now emerging under Pope Francis.
Although this is not an overthrown, there are however some minority conservative views (e.g. see here) stating that he was actually forced to resign by "liberal" forces inside and outside the Catholic Church, hoping to elect someone less conservative, like Pope Francis.
Notice that the Vatican is de facto an absolute monarchy, an elected theocracy.
Answer: King Talal of Jordan was forced to abdicate due to mental illness. He was succeeded by his oldest son, King Hussein of Jordan.
Comment: Ferdinand I & V was forced to abdicate in favor of Franz Josef in 1848 for much the same reason.  Lots of violence was going on at the time, but his overthrow was peaceful, by his family, for his not being violent enough (nor bright enough).
Answer: Technically the end of the Franco-Regime in Spain was also a peaceful transition. Though it can be disputed, if this was a real overthrow, since Franco died of natural causes.
Comment: I'd say that it was more of a collapse than an overthrow. The regime was not strong enough to survive Franco's demise and some high ranking officials did not fight (or even promoted) the change of regime.
Comment: He did support the move to a constitutional monarchy, but you could say he was a high ranking officer of the regime. He was in fact the designated successor and was supported by other high ranking offices as Manuel Fraga and Adolfo Suárez.
Comment: Supposedly the high ranking officers wanted to stay in power, but the (newly crowned) king pushed for a transition to a constitutional monarchy.
Answer: Depends on what you mean. A monarchy can be many things.
In many countries in Europe the monarch has gradually lost all formal power until in practice it became just a communicative symbol. One example is Sweden where at the start of 1700 Karl XII was an absolute monarch, by the divine-right flavour monarchy. The crown came directly from God and not from any bishop of the church.
Gradually over the next couple of hundred years Sweden transitioned (back and forth) slowly into a modern democracy where the riksdag (parliament) made all decisions and the king had no vote there and no other decisive power at all. It was not a one-way easy road, but there was no revolution or any kind of bloodshed about it. There were some situations where a revolution maybe could have happened, but it never did.
Answer: Zalomon earlier mentioned the Carnation Revolution that overthrew the Estado Novo in 1974. That was established by António de Oliveira Salazar, the Prime Minister of Portugal from 1932 to 1968, when he suffered a cerebral haemmorhage. As they expected him to die from his injuries, the President replaced him, but despite his injury he lived for another two years.
What I love about this is that he was replaced as ruler, BUT NOBODY EVER TOLD HIM. When he became unexpectedly conscious and lucid again, they kept him at home and in privacy "for his health" and just gave him lots of papers to sign and Prime Ministerial-type things to do.  He went to his grave in July 1970, thinking that he was still ruling the country. :)
EDIT:
I first heard of this during an episode of QI, which is known for the thoroughness of its fact-checking. The story is also under Salazar's entry in Wikipedia (yes, I know that's a less-than-reliable source); and was printed in the New York Times article announcing Salazar's death on 28 July, 1970, an abstract of which can be found here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/28/archives/salazar-ruler-of-portugal-for-40-years-dies-salazar-dies-in-lisbon.html
Encyclopaedia Britannica also refers briefly to his ignorance of his replacement:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antonio-de-Oliveira-Salazar
However, the New World Encyclopaedia suggests that some of his aides claim that he was aware and simply played along:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Death
Although his official title was Prime Minister, it's widely held that Salazar was in fact the ruler of the country. He established the right-wing corporatist regime that would rule Portugal until its overthrow in a military coup d'état in 1974, four years after Salazar's death.
Comment: Please edit that into the answer - comments get deleted.
Comment: Sources would improve this answer, and I'm not sure whether a prime minister is a dictator or monarch - might be that I'm reading the narrative incorrectly, which is where sources would be very useful.
Answer: The transition from communism to free-market democracy in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was mainly peaceful, this is frequently referred to as the Velvet Divorce. It took place between 16th and 29th November 1989; the first free election was held on 10th December.
The Czechoslovakian Republic itself dissolved on 31 December 1993, this was also peaceful, and the two countries (Czech Republic and Slovakia) have very a good relationship. This is called the Velvet Divorce.
Answer: What's the line between "overthrown" and "resigned"?  If you think his designated successors were chomping at the bit and pressuring him to quit, Diocletian may be a good example.


Multi-bedroom or separate bedroom/living room areas at Orlando theme parks?

Question: I'm trying to find somewhere to stay in either Disney World or Universal Studios (Orlando) with either multiple bedrooms or a separate bedroom and living area with a sofa bed or similar in the living area.  I've found Disney's "Deluxe Villas".  Are there any other options at either of these two?
Answer: I've stayed at 3 of the WDW deluxe villa resorts and used both the 1 and 2 bedroom units...  they are very nice and come with great amenities.
Out of Wilderness Lodge, Animal Kingdom Lodge, and Beach Club Villas,  BCV is my favorite if only for the awesome pool and location (walk into Epcot).
For other recommendations, I'd check out the Marriott Vacation Club
Scroll down to the Orlando section http://www.marriottvacationclub.com/vacation-resorts/marriott-vacation-club-collection.shtml
We stay at the MVC when we're in Williamsburg and the 2-bdrm suites are enormous. Never tried the ones in Orlando, but they seem to have good ratings on tripadvisor.
Comment: MVC is basically time-shares that you can also rent as a hotel (just like the Disney Deluxe Villas)
Answer: I found that Disney has a page listing rooms suitable for larger groups.
All of these have a suite layout with one or more bedrooms separate from a lounge area that generally includes a sofa bed in some form.


How do I burn my iTunes purchased TV shows onto a playable DVD?

Question: I have several tv shows that I purchased on iTunes for my daughters to watch. Rather than have them sit at the desk and watch on my laptop or on the iPad, I  would like to burn the episodes onto a DVD that will be playable in my DVD Player.
Comment: What format are they in?
Comment: They are in the M4V format
Answer: You probably won't like this answer, but as far as I know, there is no legal way to burn those episodes onto a DVD in a way that is playable in your DVD player. The problem is that the iTunes episodes are encrypted with Apple's FairPlay DRM and DVD players do not know how to decrypt them. In order to make the videos playable in a DVD player, you would need to circumvent the DRM and this is illegal in many countries.
As an alternative, you could buy an AppleTV and hook it up to your television. At $99, it is a relatively inexpensive investment, and it would allow you to stream your iTunes shows to your TV while keeping your laptop and iPad free for your own use.
Comment: I am accepting this answer. I ultimately just bought an 46" HDTV and an AppleTV. Its legal, easy and inexpensive.
Comment: I am less concerned with legal issues, more the technical. What tools are available to remove DRM and burn a playable DVD of the show. While the Apple TV is a bargain deal, it would require me to purchase a HDTV as well... so maybe not so bargain after all.
Answer: You can't, at least not with the standard tools (iTunes, iDVD). This isn't a bug but intended behavior to comply with their licensing requirements.
Your options are probably:

Break the DRM and burn it to DVD.
Find something that can stream iTunes to your TV.

It looks like there are some projects which attempt to stream iTunes to a Roku, which is not limited to HDMI out. These look pretty rough though.
Answer: Legality issues as mentioned by the previous reply, but you could use a screen recorder, like ScreenFlow to capture the video playback.  Downsides:  Quality will be reduced, filesizes will be large relative to the quality, you have to capture in real time.
Not an ideal solution, but better than nothing.
Answer: The bottom line is that the TV networks and production companies that make the TV shows and the movies that they sell through iTunes do not want you to make DVDs from your iTunes purchases. This is because they also make money from selling physical DVD collections of TV shows that you can buy or rent through companies like Best Buy, Amazon, Blockbuster or Netflix. That is why iTunes has no capability to make DVDs out of digital downloads--the TV networks would not permit Apple to provide this feature, according to the licensing and sales contracts between the TV networks and Apple.
Secondly, making a DVD from any kind of digital video is a complicated process that requires knowledge of video editing and requires a lot of input and work from the user to create one. So what you are trying to do would be far more trouble than it is worth, and if you are not an expert video editor, the resulting DVDs would most likely be of very poor image quality.
I second glorifiedHacker's suggestion that you buy an AppleTV. But the new AppleTV will only work with a flat-panel television with an HDMI digital video input. It will not work with any older TVs that only have analog video input. So see if your televisions are compatible with that.
Answer: Would Handbrake work for you? Or what about MPEG Streamclip? Both are free, great video conversion applications
Answer: I bought the cable that converts iOS device to component RCA cables and plug them into my DVD recorder and record as it's playing.  It's worked fine for me for years.
Comment: What application are you using on your iDevice to do that?


Frothing Milk By Hand

Question: What is a consistent method to froth milk if I do not have a steam wand?  I have tried things like a whisk and an Aerolatte with mixed success.
Answer: I've used a french press with good success when a steam wand was not available.  Pour some warm milk in and froth away.  You're not going to get the same shimmery-silky texture that a steam wand will do, but it'll be pretty decent.
The combination of a wide surface area and lots of small holes is excellent for introducing lots of air into the milk and keeping the bubbles really fine.
Comment: Excellent!  Something else I can do with my press! :)
Answer: Even with a steam wand, I prefer to use a French press looking device to froth my milk, and now that I broke it, a whisk.  The idea is to inject small bubbles into cold milk and then microwave it to grow the bubbles.  In the French press glass (or some other heat resistant and microwave proof container) fill a quarter high with cold milk, place the whisk handle between your palms and twirl it back in forth, frothing the milk.  Place the milk in the microwave and heat on high.  Watch it carefully as it will expand rapidly.  As soon as it does, remove your frothed milk
Answer: Harold McGee outlines a suitably geeky way in On Food And Cooking:

Put milk (the creamier the better) in a microwave-safe jar with a screw-top lid. (I use the plastic containers that attach to my food processor.) You need a decent amount -- more than a tablespoon -- but don't fill the jar more than half way.
Put the lid on the jar and shake it vigorously for about half a minute, until it doubles in volume. This adds air bubbles to the milk (hence the increase in volume).
Remove the lid and microwave on high for about 30 seconds. This stabilises the foam.
Scoop the foam out of the jar with a spoon. There'll be some warm milk at the bottom, which you could add to the drink.
Answer: If you want an emergency tool (I used it to make cappuccinos when camping ), try to use a small plastic bottle: just put in 1/3 of milk and shake hard for 1-2 minutes. After all, the real problem to solve is to make small air bubbles in the milk. I noticed it works best with semi skimmed milk, maybe the higher proteins/lipids ratio is helping here. No difference whatsoever using cold (from fridge) or warm milk.

Frothing Milk By Hand


How to get bullet penetration kills in MW2?

Question: What do you have to do to get a bullet penetration kill in MW2?  I've been stuck trying to complete the extended mags challenges because I'm not getting the penetration kills required.
Comment: If you're confused by the MW2 abreviation and/or tag, go talk about this on meta : http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/91/how-to-tag-use-acronyms-or-not
Answer: Attach FMJ to the weapon you are trying to complete the challenge with. Then follow an enemy with your fire as they run for cover. Or otherwise try to get them behind cover once they are hiding. Often, you can easily spot someone behind a window or a wall when the barrel of their weapon is sticking out.
Easiest to shoot through is sheet metal like the most walls on Scrapyard.
Answer: An extremely easy and fast way to get Bullet Penetration kills is to play 3rd person team tactical.
When you aim down your sights, you look over your right shoulder, so if you are on the left side of a door and you aim down your sights, you can see down the hallway and not be seen by anyone in that hallway. Let your guns go and fire through the wall for the easiest Bullet Penetration kills.
Answer: An easy way to obtain FMJ kills is by shooting through glass at your enemies.  Some good levels for FMJ kills are Highrise, Terminal, Trailer Park (new map), Scrapyard.
Answer: Just what the name implies really. It's counted as a bullet penetration kill when you kill someone who's behind a wall (even shooting through a railing can count), all while using the FMJ attachment.
It's probably the trickiest challenge to complete with any gun (certainly with sniper rifles).
Tip: When you see someone who's trying to run for cover, you've got a choice whether to for the chase or to shoot. In this case, shoot them through the wall. Doing this however will give your position away to your enemy.
Answer: You have to shoot and kill people that are behind something, like a thin wall.
Also make sure you have the FMJ attachment active on the weapon you are using, or it won't count as a kill in the challenge.
Answer: Equip FMJ and the heartbeat sensor using Bling. This won't work for sub machine guns obviously.  Stopping power is important as well.  Play hardcore game modes. Objective ones are sometimes better.
Basically stalk around the outside of buildings. When you see a red blip, line up your shot and start firing. If you don't immediately get hit markers then start making small sweeps. If you are playing an objective game then your best bet is to assume they are prone next to the objective.
Answer: Some kills through fences will count as BP kills.  I think it depends on whether or not you catch part of the fence (though I could be wrong).  I usually do pretty well racking up BP kills on Scrapyard (there's a good fence in where the B flag is in domination) or Sub Base (in the room with the fenced in generator).  Shooting through fences or glass is nice in that it eliminates some of the guess work.  Fences are nice in that you get to shoot through them more than once (even though it doesn't always work).
Another option is to shoot through the mattresses in Skid Row from either end of the long hallway.  In domination this is where the B flag is.  This is nice as the enemy is in a fairly predictable location on the other side of a pretty thin obstacle.
I've also gotten a fair amount by hiding behind a barricade.  The ideal situation is where you can stand and shoot the enemy directly.  When you see them you just duck behind the barricade and shoot through it.
If you're still having trouble, try using Bling with a heartbeat sensor as well.  That helps a fair amount with the ARs in knowing where to shoot in a lot more cases.
Answer: As the others have posted you need to kill someone using FMJ whilst shooting through a wall. The point I was going to make is that the reward is not Unlimited mags but Extended mags.
Comment: Welcome to the site! Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it in the question. This should really be a comment to the question and not a full answer, though.


If the electron is point like, then what is the significance of the classical radius of the electron?

Question: What is the physical meaning/significance of the classical radius of the electron if we know from experiments that the electron is point like?
Is there similarly a classical radius of the photon? The W and Z bosons?
Answer: The classical electron radius is a length scale at which the classical self-energy of the electron completely accounts for the mass. It tells you where the classical theory of a pointlike electron breaks down.
The compton wavelength tells you where quantum mechanics takes over. The ratio of the compton wavelength to the classical electron radius is the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant, and the fine structure constant tells you the strength of the successive quantum corrections.
So the classical electron radius is telling you small the compton wavelength of the electron can be given a fixed mass of the electron (so the charge is changing), before the quantum theory would be as bad as the classical theory. QED is well in the safe region, having a classical electron radius much smaller than the Compton wavelength, and is therefore well described by a quantum field theory.
This argument suggests that the theory of a massive electron whose charge is so big that it's Compton wavelength is smaller than its classical radius is inconsistent. This is the limit of large fine-structure constant, in which the theory of quantum electrodynamics is believed to be inconsistent, because of the Landau triviality issue.
Answer: That wiki article itself provides the answer:

In simple terms, the classical electron radius is roughly the size the electron would need to have for its mass to be completely due to its electrostatic potential energy - not taking quantum mechanics into account.

So since the the photon is massless, and uncharged (it doesn't interact with itself), its "classical radius" would be zero. The W bosons are charged and could similarly be given classical radii, but the Z boson is neutral and could not. In fact that article also gives the formula for finding the classical radius of any charged particle:
$$r=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q^2}{mc^2}$$
where $q$ is the charge and $m$ is the mass.
Edit in response to Revo's comment:
Care to clarify what it is about the quoted section that you don't understand?
The electrostatic interaction between charged particles contributes to their potential energy, e.g. the repulsion between like-charged particles is implemented by their "wanting" to move farther apart in order to decrease their potential energy. So if one were to assemble a sphere of charge, it would cost energy to hold it together since the same-charged parts repel each other. The bigger the sphere is, the less energy it takes because the charge is allowed to be more spread out, as it wants. This electrostatic energy is then viewed as the "source" of the electron's mass via Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation. So given the electron's charge, one can solve for the size of the sphere necessary to get the correct electrostatic energy that is equivalent to the electron's mass.
Comment: I have already read the wiki article, and I did not understand it. It is not clear to me. That is why I asked the question here.
Comment: Good answer. I would only add that $r_\mathrm{e}$ has probably stuck around because that combination of quantities often appears in formulas, and so it helps make some equations easier to read and intuit.
Answer: Let me note that the cross-section of Thomson scattering of low-frequency electromagnetic radiation on a free electron is of the same order of magnitude as the classical radius of electron squared (loosely speaking).
Answer: The point electron can be modeled by allowing the point charge to revolve in a Compton wavelength orbit.  Multiplying the rotational frequency by h, you obtain the mass energy. (Nothing new about that, Compton knew that).  However, if you multiply the frequency by the charge, you get the current. Multiply the current by the area and you get the Bohr magneton, identically.  This is all done in 6 easy equations.


Why are drums generally panned to the listener's perspective but piano panned to the player's perspective?

Question: i've posed this question to many engineers (even a few who are drummers) and i'm still without an answer. what's even more befuddling is that i have a few recordings where the drums are panned to the player's perspective and it sounds fine (and even more authentic) to me.
Answer: Well, I don't know for sure, but I wonder if the statement is even correct.
How often do you see a piano where the player face the audience? In most cases people encounter real pianos (ie at home) the piano faces the wall and the player has his/her back to the audience. In concert situations the pianist usually sits with his side to the audience, so there is no distinctive "panning" at all.
So people "know" that the bass is to the left on a piano, because that's how they usually hear/see it in real life. Plus, most people has plonked on a piano at some time. While few people has played the drums, and mostly see drumsets in rock/jazz settings, with the drummer facing the crowd, hence people "know" that the hi-hat should be to the right, and the tom to the left, even if it's the other way around for the drummer.
So I'd claim that both drums and pianos are usually panned to the listeners perspective.
Comment: Good points, +1. I would add that some left handed drummers actually have the kit completely mirrored.
Comment: i hadn't considered those points. though, i'd argue that when a keyboard instrument is in a rock/jazz/r&b-style situation the player usually faces the audience where, if panned accordingly, the low notes would be in the left speaker. but considering your points (and that the first stereo recordings were likely of classical music) i'd wager that you're probably correct. thanks for the _perspective_. (sorry...)
Answer: I pan drums to drummer perspective unless I'm doing FoH or DVD's (even multichannel mixing).
I'm a drummer and I do believe that instruments should be in listening perspective before anything.
Now, most of the times this is not my decision. If the producer wants to have listener perspective, he go it! but in a gig, if you have drummer perspective, I find it a bit weird to get used to.
Lennart is right when says that people are more used to listener perspective as drums are rare to encounter BUT I don't think there is a rule. I don't think we should consider a rule. For cymbals like rides and other speciallity (like the bendy Paste one, etc.) I might consider the whole perspective issue to better fix them in the mix.


"Miniscule" vs. "minuscule"

Question: Does the former have a typo or are they synonyms? Do they always have the same meaning? Please enlighten me as I am confused on this matter.
Answer: The word was originally minuscule, borrowed from French.  The minuscule spelling has always been the preferred spelling.  However, miniscule is not as simple as a typo.  According to the OED, the first citation of the miniscule variant is from 1871, so this is a form that has been around quite a long time.
The OED says the following about miniscule:

Variant of MINUSCULE adj., probably arising partly from shift of stress from the second to the first syllable, and partly from association with MINIATURE adj., MINIMUM adj., etc.

So, there are two reasons that miniscule persists as a variant.
The first is the shift in stress.  In English, unstressed vowels are often reduced to schwa, [ə], no matter what the fully stressed vowel would have been.  Minuscule used to always be pronounced with stress on the second syllable (containing the "u"), and was therefore unambiguously an [u] sound.  When minuscule began to get stress on the first syllable, it was no longer clear from hearing the word what the second vowel was.
The second was the existence of semantically similar words that contained the spelling mini, such as miniature and minimum.  The word mini is associated with small things.
Therefore, a person spelling the word minuscule, having no auditory cues to indicate the spelling "minu", and knowing other smallness words contain "mini", has every logical reason to think the spelling should be "miniscule".
Answer: I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but minuscule has its origin in lettering, as in writing letters of the alphabet. The "minus" in this case means less, not small, and it means lower-case letters. It is the opposite of majuscule.
Comment: I'm surprised to learn that mini does not come from minus, but instead from miniature and thus from minium, a red lead-based colouring.
Answer: I fully agree with the foregoing responses to the spelling of minuscule. As a former Latin student with English minor, I think the time has arrived to welcome "miniscule" as a full fledged member of that amazing, non-holds barred, ever evolving English language, and, as such, give it the meaning it deserves rather than demeaning it superciliously to the level of an accepted misspelling of minuscule. As "the sunneversets, Hooper and Robusto" point out, "minuscule" is the opposite of "majuscule", two vocables which are logical and elegant in French but for which the English language, in dogged resistance to yielding to Gallic influence, resorts to lame phrases such as "upper case" and "lower case," borrowed from printers' vocabularies and preferred as evidence of technical savvy used by the literati of spelling. Let "minuscule" and "majuscule" be returned to their comparative significances of size and elevate "miniscule" to membership in the language, on a par with its step-homophonic relatives, such as miniature and minimum.
Answer: Minuscule is the generally accepted and earliest form. Miniscule appeared later, and is regarded by some as an error, and others as a variant. If you use minuscule, no-one will be bothered, but if you write miniscule, some people will think it is a mistake.
See these references for more...

Merriam-Webster
Wiktionary
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/mini.html
Comment: Interesting. I'm a person who thought "minuscule" was a mistake.  I've always written it "miniscule", and find myself educated by this thread.  So, if I count as "some people", it can also be said that some people will think that "minuscule" is a mistake, its prior provenance and superior etymological characteristics notwithstanding.
Answer: I would imagine "miniscule" became prevalent because everyone made a false association between it the more common word "miniature".  When in fact it's more like "minus".  (A similar word that everyone gets wrong by coming to a false conclusion about its derivation is "supercede" instead of the actual correct word "supersede".)
As Brian Hooper says, some people will think you've made a mistake if you spell it "miniscule", but miniscule is now listed as a legitimate variant in dictionaries, simply because spelling it this way is now so common.  As an ex-Latin-student it really annoys me to see this spelling, but what can you do?

"Miniscule" vs. "minuscule"


Motivation for algebraic K-theory?

Question: I'm looking for a big-picture treatment of algebraic K-theory and why it's important.  I've seen various abstract definitions (Quillen's plus and Q constructions, some spectral constructions like Waldhausen's) and a lot of work devoted to calculation in special cases, e.g., extracting information about K-theory from Hochschild and cyclic homology.  As far as I can tell, K-theory is extremely difficult to compute, it yields deep information about a category, and in some cases, this produces highly nontrivial results in arithmetic or manifold topology.  I've been unable to piece these results into a coherent picture of why one would think K-theory is the right tool to use, or why someone would want to know that, e.g., K22(Z) has an element of order 691.  Explanations and pointers to readable literature would be greatly appreciated.
Comment: I'd like to emphasize that I'm not necessarily looking for holistic, coherent answers.  Fragmentary brain dumps are also welcome (and may receive up-votes).
Comment: Could someone provide some information about the application/manifestation of K theory in arithmetic other than Lichtenbaum conjecture and Veovodsky's work? (these are great problems and provide good motivation for a theory themselves, yet I am just curious. thx.) Or shall I open a new post for this question?
Comment: Related: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/270490/understanding-a-quip-from-gian-carlo-rota
Answer: Algebraic K-theory originated in classical materials that connected class groups, unit groups and determinants, Brauer groups, and related things for rings of integers, fields, etc, and includes a lot of local-to-global principles.  But that's the original motivation and not the way the work in the field is currently going - from your question it seems like you're asking about a motivation for "higher" algebraic K-theory.
From the perspective of homotopy theory, algebraic K-theory has a certain universality.  A category with a symmetric monoidal structure has a classifying space, or nerve, that precisely inherits a "coherent" multiplication (an E_oo-space structure, to be exact), and such an object has a naturally associated group completion.  This is the K-theory object of the category, and K-theory is in some sense the universal functor that takes a category with a symmetric monoidal structure and turns it into an additive structure.  The K-theory of the category of finite sets captures stable homotopy groups of spheres.  The K-theory of the category of vector spaces (with appropriately topologized spaces of endomorphisms) captures complex or real topological K-theory.  The K-theory of certain categories associated to manifolds yields very sensitive information about differentiable structures.
One perspective on rings is that you should study them via their module categories, and algebraic K-theory is a universal thing that does this.  The Q-construction and Waldhausen's S.-construction are souped up to include extra structure like universally turning a family of maps into equivalences, or universally splitting certain notions of exact sequence.  But these are extra.
It's also applicable to dg-rings or structured ring spectra, and is one of the few ways we have to extract arithmetic data out of some of those.
And yes, it's very hard to compute, in some sense because it is universal.  But it generalizes a lot of the phenomena that were useful in extracting arithmetic information from rings in the lower algebraic K-groups and so I think it's generally accepted as the "right" generalization.
This is all vague stuff but I hope I can at least make you feel that some of us study it not just because "it's there".
Comment: It is universal in a specific sense. See the thesis of Gonçalo Tabuada.
Comment: That's the Barrat-Priddy-Quillen theorem.  See Barrat-Priddy, "On the homology of non-connected monoids and their associated groups", and others reference Quillen, "The group completion of a simplicial monoid", Appendix Q in Friedlander-Mazur's "Filtrations on the homology of algebraic varieties".  Also see Segal, "Configuration-spaces and iterated loop-spaces" for another take.
Comment: Since there is now a paper on this, I would like to add that one can read about the universal characterization of higher K-theory that Tyler is discussing here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2282
Comment: I wasn't talking specifically about Quillen's higher K-theory functor, but about something homotopy equivalent, which produces a universal functor from symmetric monoidal categories to spectra that converts the symmetric monoidal structure into addition.
Comment: Nice to read! "The K-theory of the category of finite sets captures stable homotopy groups of spheres." I often heard this but never seen a precise statement and a proof. Can anybody provide me a reference?
Comment: You mean Quillen Higher K-functor is universal? I doubt it very much, because Quillen never proved that. In fact, A.Rosenberg developed its a derived approach K theory which is universal and enjoy all the property of Quillen higher K-functor,moreover, it is universal.
Comment: Goncalo Tabuada's description of this talk mentions "the first conceptual characterization of Quillen's higher K-theory since Quillen's foundational work". Does anyone know where one could read about that?:
http://www.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/node/3501
Answer: I think a key point is that algebraic K-theory is defined not only for rings, but also for schemes (and other kinds of "generalized spaces" in algebraic geometry). If you believe that generalized (Eilenberg-Steenrod) cohomology theories are useful/interesting in algebraic topology, then it is also reasonable to think that they might be interesting in algebraic geometry, and algebraic K-theory is in some sense the simplest and most widely studied such theory, although yes, computations are very hard.
Some other motivation:
Algebraic K-theory allows you to talk about characteristic classes of vector bundles on schemes, with values in various cohomology theories, see for example Gillet: K-theory and algebraic geometry.
Algebraic K-theory is intimately connected with motivic cohomology and algebraic cycles, see for example Friedlander's ICTP lectures available on his webpage, especially the 5th lecture on Beilinson's vision: http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~eric/lectures/ictp/
One of the major themes in arithmetic geometry is the study of special values of motivic L-functions. These values capture a lot of deep arithmetic invariants of number fields and varieties over number fields, and they seem to be mysteriously related to many other things, for example orders of stable homotopy groups of spheres. There are many results and conjectures about these values, most famously the Clay Millennium Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, and in many versions of these conjectures, algebraic K-theory plays a crucial role. See for example the survey by Bruno Kahn in the K-theory handbook, also availably at his webpage: http://people.math.jussieu.fr/~kahn/preprints/kcag.pdf
There are also many other useful things in the K-theory handbook, such as the lectures by Gillet on K-theory and intersection theory, also available here: http://www.math.uic.edu/~henri/preprints/K-Theory_Chow_Groups-6.pdf
Comment: Yes, I agree with you. Algebraic K theory is for studying algebraic geometry. In particular, algebraic cycle.
Answer: First, recall the slogan:
Small constructions are good for making calculations, but large constructions are good for proving theorems.
K-theory is certainly a large construction.
In general, K-theory seems to turn up in topology when the following slogan holds:
Chain compex good; homology bad.
You can often construct exactly the same invariant using K-theory or without, but K-theory makes the extra structure in the chain complex visible (such as Poincare duality), which makes it possible to prove theorems. As a low-dimensional topologist, the example I have in mind is Ranicki's symmetric signature. More basically, the key observation in Milnor's proof that the Alexander polynomial is palindromic is that if you construct it from the chain complex by using Reidemeister torsion, the Poincare duality becomes evident. Similarly, the Blanchfield pairing (linking pairing on the infinite cyclic cover of a knot complement) can be constructed as the symmetric signature (L-theory), which lets you see Poincare duality.
This seems completely typical. You can squish everything into the middle dimension and get information (Wall's finiteness obstruction; Alexander polynomial; Branchfield pairing...) or you can use a large K-theoretic construction to get the same information in a way which preserves the chain complex context from which it comes, revealing properties which come from the grading.
Answer: I suggest looking at the introduction to Waldhausen's original paper on algebraic K-theory (Algebraic K-theory of generalized free products, Part I, Ann. Math., 108 (1978) 135-204).
Waldhausen started out as a 3-manifold theorist, and he realized that certain phenomena in the topology of 3-manifolds would be explained if the Whitehead groups of classical knot groups were trivial.  So he set out to prove this, and in order to do so he developed a plethora of methods for dealing with K-groups (including his definition involving the S. construction).  The basic approach here is that the Whitehead group is the cokernel of the assembly map, which is a map
$$H_*(BG; K(Z)) \to K_* (R[G]).$$
Here $G$ is some group (e.g. the fundamantal group of a knot complement), $R$ is some ring (e.g. $\mathbb{Z}$), and $R[G]$ is the group ring.  The homology on the left is the homology theory represented by the (non-connective) $K$-theory spectrum.
The study of assembly maps for group rings is one area where $K$-theory computations look a bit more organized; one hopes to show that $K$-theory of group rings is actually a homology theory, i.e. that the assembly map is an isomorphism.  Of course this homology theory itself is still quite complex, since it involves the $K$-theory of some ring $R$!
Answer: As a particular application of algebraic K-theory, let me mention the intersection product on regular schemes. Let X be a regular scheme over spec Z. Then, one can use the Quillen spectral sequence and Adam's operations on K-theory to produce an intersection product on the Chow groups tensored with Q. To my knowledge, this is the first definition of an intersection theory on a class of schemes larger than those smooth over a Dedekind domain. For details, see Soule's book Lectures on Arakelov Geometry. Chapter 1 of this book contains a very nice introduction to K-theory with supports and the Adam's operations. Besides that, all you need is Quillen's original paper to understand the intersection theory.
Answer: I found Mitchell's survey "On the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjectures from a stable homotopy-theoretic viewpoint" very motivating. I assumes only little background and is written for mutually introducing homotopy theorists with algebraic K-theorists.
Answer: For me, one interesting thing about algebraic K-theory is L-theory (which I wish I understood better). This is in no way going to be coherent, but:
Let's say you are interested in classifying manifolds. That's not going to be possible, because any finitely presented group is realizable as the fundamental group of some 4-manifold, and "most" finitely presented groups don't have solvable word problem. OK then, the next best thing is to try to classify manifolds within a fixed homotopy type. Surgery theory is a technique for doing this. Given a homotopy type, you construct a CW-complex X with that homotopy type, and your first question is whether X is homotopy equivalent to a manifold. Roughly speaking, this is determined by the normal bundle. So for X to be homotopy equivalent to a manifold, you want there to exist a suitably defined bundle map $(f,b)\colon M \to X$,which is normal bordant to a homotopy equivalence. This latter condition (for a bundle map to be normal bordant to a homotopy equivalence) is detected K-theoretically (I don't understand this well enough to attempt to try to explain it).
Note that homological techniques are sufficient for simply connected manifolds (Browder, Kervaire, Milnor, Novikov...), but are not useful for manifolds which are not simply connected. And this is where K-theory enters.
The main point seems to be that algebraic K-theory provides the machinery to work with quadratic forms over nonabelian group rings with involution ($\mathbb{Z}[\pi_1(M)]$ in our case).
See also Walhausen's survery, which I don't yet understand.
Answer: Here's a reference that gives some of the history of algebraic k-theory. It might have something you're looking for. http://www.math.uiuc.edu/K-theory/0343/khistory.pdf. Also Rosenberg's book "Algebraic K-theory and Its Applications is good.
Answer: Grothendieck's original motivation for K-theory was to give a natural setting for the intersection theory on algebraic varieties.
Comment: This is Benjamin Antieau's answer, right?
Comment: I do not recall if I noticed his post at the time of posting mine; I recalled that I found other's answers being in other directions. Still one thing is that something is *an* application and another *the* original motivation.
Comment: @Zoran: the date and time of the post is right above the poster's name.  Antieau's answer was four months before yours.
Answer: It's very much "thing in itself" (quote from my advisor). And indeed it's mostly of interest to people who (1) like to compute (2) don't mind the fact that there's "no general picture", which admittedly are a minority among mathematicians. In fact, there is (or was) a separate e-archive of K-theory papers!
Still, yes, it's a very important and general way to learn about abstract rings.
Comment: Since my knowledge of K-theory is very limited, I get a big confused by your comment, that K-theory is for people who don't mind the fact that there's no general picture. It seems to me that K-theory creates a link between many different fields and so, it somehow a tool to see the big picture. So how is it then related to the fact that there may be no general picture at all?
Comment: I used to spend a lot of time looking at the K-theory archive (www.math.uiuc.edu/K-theory/) but I have yet to find enlightenment.
Comment: Well, what about the K-theory periodicity? It's a computation, too.
Comment: Though I agree the things they compute right now, in 2009, are absolutely not fun from my point of view.

Motivation for algebraic K-theory?


Cant log in as user after upgrade

Question: Everything worked fine in 11.10.  Upgraded today, got the low system resource error for my graphics card.  Completely uninstalled fglrx and reinstalled it.  Will now boot to login screen but wont let me log in as my user.  Guest logs in fine. I completely uninstalled FGLRX again, but still had the same problem.  Since my video card is old I think FGLRX is not supported for me.  How do I get a generic driver installed?  In the terminal when i type startx i says it already is started on display 0.  Any help would be great.
Answer: Which display manager did you use previously? AFAIK, 12.04 uses lightdm as default. If you were using another display manager (gdm, lxdm), you might need to re-configure your system to use that display manager instead of lightdm. This is very easy. If you were using lxdm previously, for example, you could "re-activate" lxdm with this command:
sudo dpkg-reconfigure lxdm

A menu should appear that allows you to select the display manager to use. It should even work with any of the installed display managers - so you could even enter sudo dpkg-reconfigure lightdm and select lxdm or gdm. After choosing my "previous" dm, everything worked fine for me.

Cant log in as user after upgrade


Trouble creating Punching SFX

Question: I'm having trouble creating realistic punching sounds. Everything I try to create sounds really fake or nothing like a punch. Are there any suggestions as to how I can resolve my issue?
Answer: "creating realistic punching sounds"
Your question is too vague to answer, punching what exactly? A punch to the chest will sound different to a punch to the arm, which will sound different to a punch to the head. And a punch to the head will sound different depending where on the head it lands eg a cheek hit will sound different again if that punch also connects through to cartiledge in the nose, or to the jaw, and whether teeth are broken etc. You need to analyse exactly what is happening, and then work on the layers with microscopic attention to sync & timing of different elements...
If you want it to be truly realistic, go to a karate club and ask someone to perform punches on various body parts and listen. You'll possibly be surprised how it sounds 'realistically'
Answer: Are you using library sounds or recording them yourself? What do you mean by 'realistic' anyway? In real life a punch doesn't really sound like it does in the movies generally. If you're going for that hyper-real effect then you might want to try layering several sounds together. If you're recording them yourself try imagining the sound you're trying to get before you start. Perhaps recording slaps/punches on a leather coat, hitting some mattresses hard with a baseball bat  then layering some whip sounds and some impacts with bones/nuts/veg abuse etc. Some eq and compression will help bring out the forcefulness of it. That's if you're going for that kind of sound to begin with lol
For a more 'realistic' sound just try recording yourself punching your palm or thighs! Again layer to taste. Mic choice/placement will be important too, as well as the room you record in!
Hope that helps!
Comment: Layering is indeed the key. If you're looking for a single sound you just won't find it. Yewdall has a great quote in his book "I can play you a recording of a rifle impacting a man chin and it will sound flat and lifeless, but I can play you a carefully constructed cue of three sounds and I guarantee you will double over in empathetic pain". For example one sound will have the "thump" you need while another will have the "crunch". Don't forget about cloth too... very important for "realism". And Vocal reactions as well. Most folks aren't silent when getting hit!
Comment: Applies equally to library and recordings...
Answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98MzNFKW_wk&feature=related
from 1.30 on They go a little bit about how they made the punching sounds for fight club,
i heard somewhere
and:
http://filmsound.org/studiosound/pp_fightclub.html
Answer: I agree with Tim.  I would go to a martial arts studio and get body impact sounds.  Nothing beats the sounds of hits to a real body. That being said, I would probably still enhance those sounds with some of the following.
I have faked it with a mixture melon hits for head impacts (a soft overripe honeydew) and chest hits(large watermelon), low LFE bursts, clothing rustle and body movement recordings, and some grunts and forceful exhales from my co-workers.  Hitting a thick steak or leg of lamb can do the trick too.  (If you use rubber gloves, you can have a celebratory BBQ later. Woo hoo!)
Have fun.  The trick is timing and layering. Now back to today's knife slash sounds....
Answer: Sometimes I layer in a snare drum, punching a garbage bag full of leaves, or slam a book onto the ground for some nice low end.
Answer: People might have noticed I keep linking SoundWorks videos, I'm sorry but this is pretty interesting I'm still a newbie myself so I can't really help out much but I hope it helps:
[vimeo]18467267[/vimeo]
Answer: I think there's no advice but some great examples of exaggerated, modern punching sfx
At about 3:30 min
"Watchmen" Sound Panel from Michael Coleman on Vimeo.
Answer: I think maybe there are several possibilities.
1)Foley plus lots of processing
2)Realistic sounds from a martial arts studio
3)Solid foley
4)Contact the picture editor and ask him to put batman style POW'S and CRACKS IN.
5)Orchestral stingers
Answer: Easy! I have an episode of punching sound effects being released this saturday, I did tons of research and lots of (sometimes expensive) experimentation and even though the last answer was in june 2011 who knows, someone else may stumble across this post and need what I have to tell them!
chest/back/clothing punches.
These are heavy hitting heavy resistance punches, we used a phone book, punched it several times and several different ways to get exactly the sound we were looking for. Word to the wise: punch it lightly, to strong a punch and you get plastic sounds from the cover and rustling pages (depending on how you hold it). It usually sounded better up in the air than against the ground but try it both ways and see what fits.
gut punches
A softer, longer lasting punch (generally visualized as through cloth) I made by hitting a broom or mop against a couch cushion. This one worked especially well when we added some recorded open-mouth chewing on carrots to the mix. Wile you can get away with just the broom/couch sound if you're looking to churn someone's guts or break a bone bite or chew on a carrot or celery for added emphasis.
bare skin, slaps, head punches
Go out and buy some cheap steak, put it against a solid surface that will absorb any reverberating sound and beat the heck out of it! We found you can also get a similar effect by slapping the steak against more steak.
Classic technique
The tried and true method used since the days of yore is slapping your hand against your thigh really hard and recording that (make sure it's recording!). You won't want to do this very many times.
But yes it is better if I know what sort of punch you want, there are more punching sound fx but those are the big ones! Remember to record it in a similar room/environment as the scene takes place in to get the right echo and vibrations.
www.youtube.com/user/DIYFoley

Trouble creating Punching SFX


How much money did it take to run "The Sting"?

Question: I just watched The Sting again this weekend. I know that the pay-off at the end netted the grifters a lot of money, but even before that Gondorff, Hooker, and Twist are spending left and right. Clothes, a make-over, equipment and real-estate.  Buying paint, train tickets, hiring 20-30 guys is expensive. Just where did all the start up cash come from? How much did it cost to run "The Sting"?
Answer: They got some of their cash from Lonnegan himself & the other players in the train poker game.  That was the secondary purpose of the poker game.  The primary reason was to feed Lonnegan the tale and get him interested in getting even, but Gondorff also used the opportunity to steal Lonnegan's wallet AND fleece the other poker players out of some money.
Upon returning to Hooker after the card game, Hooker asks how it went and Gondorff responds "we've got some working money", while thowing down the wad of cash he won at the card table.
Also, for those grifters who saw The Sting as a huge money making opportunity ($500,000 would have been an enormous amount of money during the depression), they may have been willing to invest some of their own money in the endeavor. And don't forget that for many of the players involved the money was only a partial reason for the sting, they mostly wanted to get revenge.
As for the cost of running the sting, when Twist is renting the space to be used for the betting parlor, he pays the old man $250 to rent both the parlor room and the room across the street.  In the same scene, Twist is told that to rent all the equipment for the store it will cost two grand, three grand if a full bar is included.
Comment: This was pretty much what I was thinking, but I wanted to see if anyone had bothered to count it up.  I also wonder if Billie (the Madam/speakeasy operator) threw in some to help.


What determines which 2 guns you pull out when gunzerking?

Question: I now have more than 2 gun options, and some are better than other for Gunzerking.  It seems I can't change weapons once I am Gunzerking, and I always pull out a 2nd weapon to compliment the one I already have drawn.  What determines the 2nd gun I draw?
Answer: As said, the first and the second weapon are one bundle, and the third and fourth weapons are another bundle. You will start with the bundle where your current equipped weapon is in. When you have equipped your third weapon, the second bundle will be equipped.
Example:

Weapon: Shotgun
Weapon: Pistol
Weapon: Sniper rifle
Weapon: Rocket launcher

You've got equipped your rocket launcher and activate gunzerking you'll take your sniper rifle and you'll have your sniper rifle and your rocket launcher equipped. If you've got equipped your shotgun, you'll take the pistol as second weapon. You can change your weapon bundle like you change the weapons without gunzerking, as far as I know it's impossible to just change just one weapon when you have all the 4 weapons slots equipped.
Using the PC version at least, you can press two number keys, like 1 then 3, you will equip the first gun in your left hand and the second in your right hand (so Right: Shotgun, Left: Sniper, in this case). I don't know if there's a way to do this on console, though.
Edit 2:
Found some interesting facts on the GearboxSoftware Forum:
From top to bottom in your inventory, weapons 1 and 2 gunzerk with each other, and weapons 3 and 4. If you only have 3 weapons, then the weapon you are holding will stay on the right, equipping the weapon 2 if you're using weapon 1, vice versa, and weapon 1 if you're using weapon 3. Switching weapon will switch your right weapon, but your left weapon won't switch.
Comment: According to a Gunzerking friend you can use the weapon hotkeys (1234) on PC to switch one gun, then the other
Comment: cool, thanks for the info, didn't check that.
Answer: The first two slots of your "equipped" guns will be the first set of gunzerking guns, and the third and fourth slots will be the second set. When you start gunzerking you'll be using the first set, but you can switch to the second using the weapon switch button/key.
I saw this on one of the in-game loading screens, but here's a reference from the Gearbox forums.


How to make hot dog buns or sandwich rolls with a soft crust?

Question: Whenever I make sandwich rolls, the crust ends up too thick and too crispy. I've tried a few things, such as a moister dough, but I can't seem to get a combination of a hearty bread and a soft crust. Questions: I'm baking at 425, is this too hot/cold? Will it help to add more/less fat to the dough? Will it help to add more/less water to the dough? Do I need to do a slower rise? How do you control the crustiness of a bread, anyway?
Answer: Normally, a bun for a hotdog or hamburger is going to be made of a softer, sweeter dough.  It will have higher egg, milk, fat, and sugar content.  It is a slightly softer (more water) dough than a white bread dough (and a lot softer than a crusty, lean loaf like french).  You will definitely want to bake it at a lower temperature, 425 is far too high.  I would not usually bake too many breads higher than 400.  A softer, sweeter dough such as this should be baked no higher than 375.  If you are looking for a good pointer towards the type of dough to use, I use the same dough for hotdog and hamburger buns as I use to make cinnamon buns/sweet rolls.
Comment: @merwienerdog I think your name alone deserves upvotes on a question of this nature. :)
Comment: Haha, now that is funny
Comment: Plus one for richer dough and lower temperatures. I would definitely not agree with the idea that most breads should be baked at 400 or less, however. That really depends on the style of bread you're making--authentic baguettes, for example, want a really hot oven, in excess of 500 degrees. But you're right that the typical hotdog bun wants a lower temperature to keep the crust soft.
Comment: Fair enough about baguettes, but I am speaking of more standard fair.  Crusty breads, baguettes, etc. would require higher temps.  I have personally never gone higher than 450 for the first cycle (steam) of these, but to each their own.
Answer: Hearty and hot dog buns aren't two ideas you see put together very often. If you're doing something like using some amount of whole grain flour in the buns then you're going to get a chewier crumb and crust just because of the recipe you're using. If you are making a richer/sweeter dough already then yes, lower temperature will help. I looked at a couple of recipes and 400°F seems to be the temperature that most recommend.
Beyond that, there are a couple of other things you could try. You could try making a wash of egg white and a little water and brushing that on the bread before baking. This is traditional for similar doughs like challah and it allows the crust to remain soft and promotes even browning. If you're not already, you could also try using a special pan. There are Pullman / pan de mie pans that cover the bread on all sides when baking, which limits the extent to which the crust can form considerably.  You can get special hot dog pans that are shaped on the bottom (so you get the nice hot dog bun shape) and you can simulate the pan de mie effect by placing a greased cookie sheet (greased side down toward the buns) over the bun pan when baking. This should definitely help avoid an overdone or overdeveloped crust. (King Arthur Flour sells one of these kinds of pans online.)
Hamburger buns / sandwich rolls would be a little trickier as the specialty pans for those are probably too shallow to use the cookie sheet on top trick. Instead, you could try baking the rolls on a special pan or half sheet pan with some aluminum foil tented, shiny side out toward the heat, and crimped around the lip of the pan.
Answer: I just did a basic bun recipe, which is a sweeter dough.
I set the oven to 375 F and the crust ended up quite crispy...but I failed on prepping the dough. Before the second rise I should have used the egg-white wash. Instead I used the wash just prior to baking. Umm....that didn't work too well.
The next batch ended up perfect, I washed before the second rising....then baked. Came out perfectly soft at 375F.
Hope that helps someone.
Answer: Why not try putting an additional pan in the oven with hot water in it.  The stream from the water should help to keep the outside moist.
Also, I would recommend brushing them with butter or some wet flavoring when they come out of the oven to help keep them moist from the pan to the table.
I do think your temperature is too high, though I can't say how much lower it should be.

A response to the idea of more water: (I'm an experienced home bread baker.)
As odd as it seems, the pan of hot water will INCREASE the crispiness of the bread.  The reason is that the additional moisture keeps the outer shell of the dough (as it cooks) in a pliable, gelatin state much longer than without the steam and that prevents the crust from turning crisply too early.  So then, the crust gets thicker and later will dry out more.
My reference material for soft crust bread calls for using milk instead of water and using a substantial amount of liquid oil, such as canola oil.  Then cook at 375 -- 400 degrees F. (200 degrees C.) for only 25 minutes.
Answer: If you want to keep the crust of hotdog or hamburger buns "soft," after the last rising - and before the baking - brush the top with melted butter.  Just make sure the butter isn't too hot or you'll deflate the dough.  Bake them at 350 deg. for approximately 20 minutes and give them another brushing of butter on all surfaces.  Also, don't forget to use milk instead of water and honey instead of sugar.  The buns should come out - and remain soft.


Irreducible representations of the unitriangular group

Question: Hi,
I wonder how much is known about the irreducible representations of the nxn unitriangular group over a finite field with q elements.
I know that all characterdegrees are a power of q and all degrees which occur are known.But what is known about the irreducible representations or the complete charactertable at least for small values of n?For example is the charactertable for n=3 known?
Thanks for helping
Comment: I know this is a super-old question, but Diaconis et al looked at almost exactly this question: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04160
Answer: Not much—the theory of individual irreducible representations is a 'wild' problem, in some technical sense (that I don't know).  My understanding, which comes entirely from informal conversations with Nat Thiem, is that the state of the art is to lump together representations until you get more nicely behaved objects called supercharacters.  As far as I know, the original definitions are due to
André (who calls them 'basic characters') and Yan, and there is an explicit supercharacter table.
Answer: I think you might enjoy Kirillov's survey article which describes Orbit method approach in this particular case.  Also, if I recall correctly, this article by Ery Arias-Castro, Persi Diaconis and Richard Stanley gives a very readable introduction to the state of art on the conjugacy classes and characters.
Answer: Let q = pk be a prime power, n be a positive integer, and U be a Sylow p-subgroup of GL(n, q).
For n = 1, U = 1 is the trivial group and its character table is known (just the identity/principal character).
For n = 2, U = q is elementary abelian of order q, and its character table is known (just q distinct linear characters).
For n = 3, U is similar to an extra-special q-group, and the same calculation works to find its ordinary character table.  A sketch: U/[U, U] is elementary abelian of order q2, giving q2 (known) linear characters.  Since |U|−[U : [U, U]] = q3−q2 = q2(q−1), and the degrees of the irreducible characters are powers of q and their squares sum to |U|, one must have the remaining characters have degree q and there are q−1 of them. Since U is monomial, each of these characters is induced from a (non-principal) linear character on a subgroup of index q (which must be abelian).  Hence each such character vanishes off of Z(U), and acts in the expected way on its center.  That is, take any non-identity irreducible character θ of Z(U), there are q−1 of these, and then define χ(g) = q⋅θ(g) if g in Z(U) and χ(g) = 0 otherwise.  Personally I just execute the definition of induced character and then check the norm of χ is (χ,χ)=1, but I think there are cleverer ways.
I think prime powers q for higher n work similarly, but I'm not very familiar with even the prime case for n ≥ 4.
Answer: An earlier answer tells you what happens when $n=3$.  This is a special case of the Heisenberg group (at least in odd characteristic; not sure otherwise), any exposition of which might be illuminating if you're looking for more context.
More generally, Boyarchenko has recently shown that all representations of "nilpotent algebra" groups, of which unitriangular groups are a special case, are induced from one-dimensional representations of "nilpotent algebra" subgroups.  While this fact is not a magical tool for computing the full character table (a wild problem, as LS says), it's pretty interesting, and might allow you to work out the $n=4$ case if you were interested in such an exercise.
Comment: Since this question is about finite algebra groups, it should be pointed out that the result that says that any irrep of an algebra group over a finite field is induced from a 1-dim'l rep of an algebra subgroup is due to Halasi. Boyarchenko has given a new proof valid also for algebra groups over local fields.
Comment: thanks,i know that result.it would be interesting to know what has been done for n=4,before i try ;) I know for example that all characterdegrees with their multiplicity is known.can someone by the way say what exactly "wild" means?
Comment: A somewhat relevant question I'm curious about: if we work over $\mathbb{R}$ instead of a finite field, the problem of determining the irreps of the group remains just as "wild"?
Comment: @AStansinski:  You're right, I should have mentioned Halasi, but have local fields on the brain.
Comment: @trew, I *believe* that the sense in which the classification is wild is that discussed in http://mathoverflow.net/questions/10481/when-is-a-classification-problem-wild.
Answer: Here is what I found out about the characters when n=4.I dont know if thats interesting and how to get the actuall irreducible characters then.Maybe someone has an idea:
There are $ q^{3} $ linear and from http://fourier.math.uoc.gr/~marial/uni1.published.pdf there are $q^{3}-q $ characters of degree q and $q(q-1)$ characters of degree $q^{2}$.
Now lets look at the characters of $G/Z(G)=1+J/J^{3}$ ,where Z(G) is the center of the group and J are the lower triangular matrices with zeros on the diagonal.This is again an algebragroup,so we have:
$q^{5}=q^{3}+aq^{2}+bq^{4}$,where a is the number of the degree q characters of G/Z(G) and b the number of degree $q^{2}$ characters.
Assume $ \phi$ is a degree $q^{2}$ character in G/Z(G),then $ [ \phi_{Z(G/Z(G))} , \psi] \neq 0$ ,for a linear character $\psi $ of Z(G/Z(G)).But then since $\psi$ is G/Z(G) invariant as a character of the center and using Clifford: $\phi_{Z(G/Z(G))}=q^{2} \psi$ and then $ \psi^{G/Z(G)} = q^{2} \phi +...$ which is not possible because of $ \psi^{G/Z(G)}(1)=q^{3} < q^{4} =q^{2} \phi(1)$.
So we have b=0 and a=q^{3}-q from $q^{5}=q^{3}+aq^{2}$.So all the degree q characters of G are also the degree q characters of G/Z(G).
Let now $\chi$ be a character of degree q of G/Z(G) then we can choose a linear character $\psi$ of Z(G/Z(G)) with $[\chi_{Z(G/Z(G))} ,\psi] \neq 0 $ and again as above: $ \psi^{G/Z(G)} = q^{2} \chi +...$
Since $(1_{Z(G/Z(G))})^{G/Z(G)}$ has all linear characters as constituents $\psi^{G/Z(G)}$ can only have degree q irreducible constituents.So for all(there are $q^{2}-1$ such) the nontrivial linear characters $\psi_k $ of Z(G/Z(G)),we have :
$ (\psi_k)^{G/Z(G)} = q \sum\limits_{i=1}^{q} {\chi_i}$.
Similary one can show that for all nontrivial linear characters $\vartheta_k $ of Z(G) one has:
$(\vartheta_k)^{G}=q \sum\limits_{i=1}^{q} {\phi_i} $,where $\phi_i$ are degree-$q^{2}$ characters of G.


is there a movie recording tool for dslr connected to phones?

Question: I have a 40D and I'm sometimes using EOS-MovRec to record movies. Since there is no firmware mod/hack for the 40d available I'm asking this question.
Is there a tool for the iphone/symbian/android to connect my DSLR and use it just like in
EOS-MovRec as a camera and record a movie?
Greetings
Answer: Try this link you will get some tips
http://dpexperience.com/2010/02/12/recording-audio-with-your-video-dslr-part-i/


How long should we wait before deploying Vista / Server2008 SP2

Question: Now that Microsoft have released Vista & Server 2008 SP2 (see Lifehacker).  How long should I wait before installing it on:

Stand alone machines
PCs on the domain
Windows servers
"Critical" Servers
Answer: I would give it at least a week before installing on anything but a test machine - I've never seen an emergency Service Pack retraction more than a day or 2 after release.
The next step is to deploy as fast as possible - it may contain security enhancements not in SP1 + Automatic updates.   Part of deployment planning is testing in your environment.  This would apply equally to system types 1-4 above.  Vista SP2 does not have Server 2008 SP2 as a prerequisite, so this can be installed in any order.
If there are incompatibilities with SP2 and your environment, the actual timeline for deployment may be many weeks as these are resolved by either the application supplier or Microsoft.
Answer: In theory you've already tested application compatibility with the RC on a test system and server. Now that it's released the time to apply it is now. You should make a backup of your standard desktop image and apply the RTM version.  After a quick test on your system (assuming you are not already running windows 7 RC) roll it out to a few test users (number 2 on your list) and after verifying that you have backups, roll it out to the standalone machines. (#1).  While your users are verifying that it won't break their copies of solitare, you can chedule the reboots and downtime to deploy it to your 2008 servers.  All of your servers should have a backup.  This is critical as I have seen servers go belly up during the RC due to driver issues (servers that did not have updated drivers).  If you've kept up on driver updates you can apply the SP2 to windows servers. (#3).  You should now roll out SP2 to the rest of your userbase.  I'm not sure by what you mean by "critical" windows servers.  I'm guessing that those are nonredundant servers with high value business functions (which begs the question how critical can they be of they aren't redundant?).  Ensure that they are up to date on the firmware/driver front before applying the SP and after a few days on the other servers I'd finalize the rollout.
Answer: I would deploy it today on test machines. Ideally you should then then test all critical applicaitons and then rollout once you are confident that they aren't impacted, and can schedule the down time with your users.
For servers you should have a good roll back strategy and the nature of the applications that they host should dictate when they get updated.
As long as your machines are otherwise fully patched against security exploits I wouldn't be too worried about rushing the SP on in the short term, but the longer you wait, the more vunerable you become.
Answer: This came up today in a conversation with our SysAdmin folks.  A good time buffer is based on when the service pack is released to Windows Update and/or WSUS.  Once it is released there, we deploy to test and development machines (and our own, IT-staff desktop if applicable).  Then wait a month for the next round of "Patch Tuesday" fixes before pulling the trigger on pushing it out through WSUS.
So, it could take a few months, total, before we push it out broadly.
Answer: Patches should be deployed in the following manner.
One (your own machine)
Few (other admins/power users [this is where most of your problems will come from])
Many (Everyone else)
If they are not critical updates, wait about a week to deploy each series. But it's highly dependent on the TYPE of patch or Service Pack. Critical Security Updates should be applied ASAP, most everything else can wait a bit, especially Service Packs.


What is the ideal climate for growing hops?

Question: I would like to start growing my own hops and want to know what the ideal climate is.  I've read that hops will grow in most areas of North America, but there must be places where they grow better than other.  Do some varieties grow better in certain climates while another climate might be more suited towards a different variety?
Comment: I have a cousin in minnesota that grows hops to sell
Comment: Just for some data points, we have one Willamette and one Nugget  growing on the front of our house in Chicago. (southern exposure) With almost no attention, they grow like crazy and produce many pounds of hops each.
Answer: Hops can grow well anywhere between the 30th and 50th parallels.  How well they do in a small-scale, home gardener setting is really up to how good of a gardener you are, which in turn comes down to how dedicated you are to their upkeep.
That said, hops are very fast growers and as such require a lot of water.  This is why the Pacific Northwest of the US is a major hop growing region - they get a lot of rain there, meaning they don't need to provide much irrigation to keep the hop bines happy.  But in your own back yard, as long as you're willing to water them thoroughly a couple of times per week and if you are sure to start them off in quality soil, they'll grow very well for you.  In fact, they spread and can be invasive, not unlike morning glories.
I bought my rhizomes from Freshops.  They have a good writeup on hop gardening on their site.
As far as different varieties go, the main thing to look out for is their pest and disease resistance.  Some varieties are more susceptible to, say, powdery mildew than others.  Choose varieties that are hardy against your region's known plant diseases and pests.
Answer: Most hops in the US are grown in the Yakima valley, technically a desert. Watering hops may be necessary depending where you are located but let me assure you any water there would be irrigation from the grower, as there is little or no rainfall. Dripline has been recommended on many sites and I would predict this is the standard of the region.


How to cache a large object

Question: I have an object made up of many vertices that changes very rare (for the most part of time, it looks the same) and I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid rendering all its vertices every frame. However, being a OpenGL beginner I have no idea how to do it. I was thinking I could render it to a texture and only show the texture every frame. But I don't know if it's possible or if there are better ways.
Answer: The technical term for rendering a model into a texture once and then just drawing that texture to the screen in place of the model is called the "imposter" technique.  That is, the texture is an imposter for the model.  In the old days, this was a common technique for filling out large crowds -- render textures of a few character models, and then draw lots of copies of that texture.  And the game Trespasser went so far as to use it for most of its game objects.
In practice, there are a lot of problems with imposters, so it's unusual for them to be used in games these days (though they were quite common in the PS2 era).  Being a static texture, they don't animate well (every copy of each imposter will be showing the same pose, for members of a crowd), they don't show correct perspective effects, etc.
It sounds like what you're really asking for is a way to avoid having to send your rarely-changing vertices to the graphics card every frame.  To do that, you want to put the vertices into a Vertex Buffer Object (VBO, for short).  Once you've done that, the vertices will remain in memory managed by the GPU driver, so that all you'll have to do is tell OpenGL to render using the vertices you've already stored in that VBO.
Exactly what functions you use to create and reference VBOs will vary a bit based on whether you're writing for an OpenGL 2.x or OpenGL >=3.x context.  But this is the general concept.  :)
Answer: This is a common thing, generally you use either vertex arrays or VBO's (Vertex Buffer Objects) to render large objects (vertices numbering in the millions). What VBO's do is make use of the graphics processor by loading the vertices into high powered GPU memory.
The classic NeHe tutorials  describe how to do this and there are many examples (of varying quality) of code around the web, check these other links out:

Simple Tutorial on VBO's: This tutorial gives a good overview of the commands needed.
This tutorial is somewhat dated but has good info. Especially if your graphics card is a little low down on the food chain.
Answer: If you have a stationary object and the camera doesn't move, you can render the object to an off-screen texture - a frame buffer object (FBO) - and then you just have to blit that texture each frame.
In general you should assume that the contents of the frame-buffer before each frame are garbage, and always clear it.  But in OpenGLES on many platforms you can control if the last frame remains in the buffer when you draw the next frame and this may be an alternative to using an explicit FBO.
However, if you have a scene too complex to draw each frame at a reasonable rate, and you ever need to actually redraw the scene completely (as simple as the camera moving, even if the objects in the scene do not) then you'll get choppy frame-rates.
I've used the build-scene-over-many-frames and change-level-of-detail-when-panning for things like fractal viewers where choppiness can be forgiven.  In more mainstream use-cases, hmm.

How to cache a large object


What can we do about previously filled holes so I can varnish wood?

Question: We have bought a house that has nice wooden doors, but holes in them have been filled ready for painting.  We would prefer to varnish the wood - what can we do about the white filling in the holes?
Answer: Test it first. You may be able to just stain the filler as is.
If that does not work, dig out the existing filler with whatever tool works (putty knife, old drill bit, a thick nail) and replace it with something you can stain. Not sure if paint stripper works on filler, but it's work a short.
If there's any other stains or treatments on the door though, you need to remove those with chemicals like The Evil Greebo, and sand it down nice and fine.
Answer: Assuming they used a proper, stainable wood filler, your best result will occur if you strip the wood to remove any existing finish, and then re-stain the wood including the filler, so that you get a consistent look to the wood.
The downside is, stripping wood involves the use of pretty harsh chemicals, and a lot of manual labor scraping and then scrubbing with steel wool.  But the end result will not be better using any less intensive method.
Answer: Consider faux finishing the spots. You can find many good sources for simple approaches to creating a painted finish for those spots that would mimic the wood. This is an answer if the filler will not take stain. Paint the spots carefully with a good primer. Using small brushes and different shades of glaze (a semi-transparent paint) lay down layers to complete the grain that is missing. If you look at the grain you can see it as layers of different shades. Probably two or three would do it. Light, medium, dark, allowing each to dry before applying the next. This is not as difficult as one might think. The thing about decorative painting is that no one will ever look closely or even expect it to be perfect. The goal is to get the eye to go over it without stopping. It doesn't need to be great. Some judicious smudging can go a long way to help it look natural. Have fun.