Should I buy a cyclocross bike or road bike to do Triathlons and CX?

Question: I have a mountain bike and used it in my first triathlon without slick on. Now I'd like to get into doing triathlons just for fun, not competitively. I'd also like to get into doing cyclocross. Here's my dilemma...should I purchase a road bike and just use my Gary Fisher mountain bike for cyclocross or should I buy a cyclocross bike and use it for Triathlons? Any suggestions? Also what are the top brands for both road bikes and cyclocross bikes for a 5' female and cost range around 1K?
Answer: If you have the budget for only one more bicycle you cannot go wrong with a cyclocross bike, you will be able to race CX in the fall (typically after triathlon season) and you can get some fenders and slick tires for road rides in winter/spring and take the fenders off when the weather turns nice for Triathlon season. You can get clip on aero bars if you really want to, but since your planning the triathlons as fun events, there is no need for aero bars or a tri specific bike.
I use my CX bike year round, either with CX tires during cross season or fenders/slicks during rainy season and take the fenders off during the summer months.
You can get by with a MTB for cross races (I see people all the time with MTBs at cross races), but it will be heavier and harder to carry up the run ups and over the barriers.
Take a look at Kona - 'Jake' or 'Jake the Snake' for a good CX bike.
Keep that mountain bike and try an XTerra (offroad) triathlon, lots of fun!
Comment: +1 If the OP has already raced a triathlon with a MTB, a Cyclocross will be very close (close enough) to a road bike to even make a difference, AND will allow for a bit of abuse doing CX.
Answer: A cross bike will do a little bit of everything fairly well. A triathlon bike will only do time trials. You're also going to have more options at the $1k range with a cross bike. Slim pickins at that price point for a tri bike.
Get some clip on aero bars and get a cross bike. If down the road you really get eaten up with triathlon, and get a dedicated tri bike.
Comment: CX bike it is then. Do you have any suggested favorite ones for me to check out? I'll definitely check out Jake the Snake too. Thanks for feedback and directing me. This sites great!
Answer: It has to depend what your priority will be
If the triathlon's are going to be a priority consider spending all of your money on a road bike and add some clip on aerobars. You could then spend some time  adapting your MTB for Cyclocross racing which takes a little effort but can lead to good rewards. The joy of cx is that you can ride whatever you like and have just as much fun.
If your priority is going to be triathlon events AND doing better at Cyclocross you would be better suited to spending the money on a nice cx bike. Make sure it has a 46/48t outer chainset which will allow you a big spread of gears and your only real adaptations required will be the tires.
If you do choose to buy a Cyclocross bike the big debate at present is whether you ride discs or canti's. Disc's haven't made big strides into European Cyclocross as yet and my opinion is that when Sven Nys starts riding them-That's when it's time to swap from canti's.
Good luck


How do the lungs act as a sieve to trap blood clots?

Question: Does anyone know? I'm curious to find out  as my human anatomy and physiology book doesn't go into much detail on how the lungs function as such
Answer: Just as an intro...
The heart pumps deoxygenated blood from the right ventricle, through the pulmonary arteries (pic) which then eventually split into small capillary networks that surround the alveoli. The alveoli are formed by the trachea eventually branching off. So when you breathe in, the alveoli become filled with higher levels of oxygen.
The blood then becomes oxygenated and returns to the heart via the pulmonary veins to be pumped to the rest of the body.
The deoxygenated blood becomes oxygenated because there is a difference in oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration between the capillary network (O2 low / CO2 high) and the alveoli (O2 high / CO2 low) and so gas diffuses across because of the difference in concentrations (pic).

Physiology textbooks explain these mechanisms but for blood clots in particular, you'll need to check out a pathophysiology book.
Blood clots
When a blood clot travels to the lungs, it's referred to as a pulmonary embolus or PE.
Most of the time (90%), pulmonary emboli are formed in deep veins of the lower leg. These then travel to the pulmonary circulation system.
Large emboli block larger vessels - the pulmonary arteries and their branches. The smaller ones travel further into the network.
Patients can sometimes be asymptomatic and the emboli can at times resolve on its own. The extent of the severity of a PE is determined by:

how much blood flow is obstructed;
how long the embolus has been there; and
presence other underlying lung or heart disease.

There are a number of things that a PE can cause physiologically.
Reduced Gas Exchange - alveolar dead space occurs when an alveolus is ventilated, but not perfused with blood. This, along with other factors, cause varying levels of hypoxemia (lack of oxygen).
Pulmonary Infarction - in a small amount of cases loss of blood flow to lung tissue can cause tissue death. This is fairly uncommon.
Right Ventricular Failure - if there is a large enough blockage (> 50 - 60%), the pressure in the pulmonary arteries increase. Subsequently, the load on the right ventricle is higher.
So in acute cases, the ventricle hasn't had time to adapt (hypertrophy) and so the right heart can fail.
At any rate, the haemodynamic balance can be disrupted when a PE is present.
In the elderly or people with underlying disease where their lung function is already decreased, PEs can have a significantly larger effect because they can't compensate. There are many more important points related to this but hopefully this is a useful (very) basic overview.
Comment: The *possible advantage* of this is that if the embolism being trapped in the lungs is that it does not continue on through the left heart and into the systemic circulation, where it could cause a stroke, acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) or infarction of other vital organs.  Of course, if the pulmonary embolism affects a large portion of the the lung then this advantage is entirely negated.
Answer: I'll ask the lung experts I work with later today for a better answer. To my knowledge, the lungs, as an organ, have a very extensive capillary network that facilitates gas exchange. If blood clots become mobile in the blood stream, they can travel perfectly well in large vessels, but once they get down to a capillary, they are physically blocked from passing through. The blood clots don't have to be large in size, because the capillaries are only about 6 micrometres in diameter.
Comment: But if a blot clot gets stuck in a small capillary, won't it get occluded and prevent blood flow? I know that the lungs have a mechanism to prevent ventilation-perfusion inequality, and if a blood clot did get stuck, there would be bronchioconstriction of the airway leading to that alveolus, but  I don't see how just getting stuck in a capillary makes the lung a sieve for blood clots. I do appreciate you asking the lung experts. Thank you for answering!


MikroTik vs. Cisco for WiFi bridge application

Question: A local vendor is proposing a wireless bridge solution using MikroTik.  I had never heard of MikroTik before but it seems they have a following.  My usual first choice is Cisco, however the price difference between the two is significant > 8X.  Am I crazy to be considering MikroTik?  Anyone ever heard of it? How well do they compare?
MikroTik RB433 with wireless card vs Aironet 1410
Comment: Out of curiosity why is youre first choice usually Cisco?
Comment: Familiarity, good quality, good technical resources...
Answer: I had the same issue trying to decide what to use, as was with you cisco was my first choice but then I saw the licensing and infrastruture costs so I went with a combination of Mikrotik and Ubiquity equipment, I have had great success runnning both, they are nice and customizable (although I will admit the mikrotik cli is a bit annoying at times), the Ubiquity kit is a web driven config but it is very featurefull without any of the fluff and stuff you dont really need, runs on AirOS (linux based as with the mikrotik gear) and can successfully run a 11g link of over 50Km LOS, though I have heard tell of Mikrotik gear going up to 70Km LOS with a parabolic antennae. All in all I'd say your pretty dang safe with either Mikrotik or Ubiquity gear.
Answer: You should really also consider looking at vendors like Aruba and Motorola when looking into wireless/wireless bridges.
Answer: I'm the head network admin of a small company (3000~ users) in Australia that has been using Mikrotik routers (in place of cisco gear) for about 4 years now.
The mikrotik stuff is fully 802.11x compatible but they do (similarly to any major player) provide proprietary extentions that are only compatible between mikrotik devices.
One of the best examples of this is the nstreme protocol they use which introduces a wireless polling mechanism to allow best throughput with p2mp sites where sites are at varying distances and bundles packets to allow better throughput.
One of my 5.8ghz p2p links running nstreme in Turbo-A mode.
 img37[dot]imageshack[dot]us/img37/5276/9544426.jpg
As mentioned above, whenever you use such a system you need to ensure you have a good way to monitor and check any issues with it, mikrotik does provide such an inteface in the form of a mangement application named winbox. (or alternatively you can use the dude for en-masse management)
Answer: Old question but I'll add my 2c worth for people wondering about Microtik in the future.
I used to work for an ISP that rolled out Microtik access points across a city with both Ubiquiti and Mikrotik hana clients.  The performance was fantastic.  No, it's not a silly idea to go with Microtik over cisco.  In fact, It may be better than cisco.  You're buying a name brand with cisco, although they generally are very good.  Cisco's licencing policy has never been particular user friendly.
Originally we used another brand of gear (forgot which) but they were very expensive.  Performance was a huge problem with them and we couldn't get good support from the company supplying them to the market or the manufacturer.  Not have those problems with Mikrotik.
I can highly recommend those two brands to you.
Answer: There are many lesser-known vendors who make long-distance wireless bridge solutions, and many of them have been around for a long time. Because one vendor is providing both ends of the bridge, interoperability isn't as much of a concern as it is for a traditional 802.11 wireless LAN.
I am not sure it's still the case, but many vendors used to do things that aren't necessarily Wi-Fi- or 802.11-compliant to make long-distance links work better (like extending certain timeout thresholds or not acknowledging certain packets). The main downside I can see to this is that it'll be more difficult to use standard 802.11 packet analyzers to troubleshoot problems. But it looks like this MikroTik router uses vanilla 802.11abg anyway.
If you are already using Cisco wireless devices throughout your network, and you have a network management system that supports them, then maybe there's some benefit to sticking with what you know. The bridge devices either need to have a good management interface built-in or you have to have good external monitoring software so that you can tell what's going on when the link misbehaves or goes down.
And how could you not like a company whose software is called "The Dude"?
Answer: Mikrotik is not bad, it's very popular in Europe. The only one critical thing it miss, is a 802.3af compatibility.
Answer: Mikrotik RouterOS (The nix running inside the routerboard) is highly malleable. Easy to do L7 filters, Mangling, Per Connection Classification and that kind of stuff. Next, the forums are basically useful. Basic networking skills required though!
email@example.com
Kenya.
Answer: I haven't kept up with them, but I was pretty happy with the MikroTik products I used for a large wireless deployment a few years ago. Their support was also good and inexpensive (like $200/month, I think).


Proof that theory of infinite numbers does not have finite model

Question: Just curious:
Is there any proof that proves that there is no finite model of infinite numbers (Theory of infinite numbers)?
Edit: by infinite number, I mean either Reals or Naturals.
Comment: What is the "theory of infinite numbers"?
Comment: @ChrisEagle I edited the question.
Answer: These theories satisfy the conditions $$\forall x\exists y:x>y,$$ $$\forall x:\neg(x>x),$$ and $$\forall x\forall y\forall z:(x>y\wedge y>z)\implies x>z.$$ In other words, they imply that $>$ is a strict partial order without a maximal element. This cannot be in a finite set, so there is no finite model.
Answer: I am not sure what you mean by the "Theory of Infinite Numbers". In empty language (only logical symbols), you can write something like the theory of an infinite set. It has as its axioms,
$$\Phi_N \equiv (\exists x_1, ..., x_n)(\bigwedge_{i,j \leq n} x_i \neq x_j)$$
That is the theory is $\{\Phi_n : n \in \omega\}$. Every model of this theory is infinite.
You can also interpret the Theory of infinite numbers to mean, $Th(\omega)$ of $Th(\mathbb{R})$ to mean the full theory of $\mathcal{L}$ structure $\omega$ or $\mathbb{R}$ where $\mathcal{L}$ is the appropriate language, i.e. the language of arithmetics or fields. The full theory means the set the all $\mathcal{L}$-sentences that is true in $\omega$ or $\mathbb{R}$ respectively. Anyway, neither of these two have a finite models since $\mathbb{R}$ and $\omega$ models $\Phi_n$ of all $n \in \omega$. Remarkably by Upward Lowenheim-Skolem, the theory of the natural numbers and the theory of the real numbers have infinite models of arbitrarily large cardinality.
Answer: Note that there is no "theory of infinite numbers", the natural numbers and the real numbers are both models of many theories. One of which is the "empty" theory in which there are no axioms, however this theory is satisfied by any mathematical structure, in particular finite structures are models of this theory.
You also need to specify the language, if we consider $\mathbb R$ only as a linearly ordered set there are things which are true and others which are false; but those are unrelated if you only consider $\mathbb R$ as a field. The language of fields does not include a symbol for $\leq$ and the language of linear orders does not include $0,1,+,\cdot$.
However we can still give this a good answer, since we can think of $\mathbb R$ as a model of RCF, the theory of Real-Closed Fields (which are provably ordered fields) and we can give the natural numbers the theory of PA, Peano Axioms.
For the real numbers note that the characteristics has to be zero (otherwise we cannot have an ordered field) and therefore: $$1\neq 0, 1+1\neq 0, 1+1+1\neq 0,\ldots,\underbrace{1+1+\ldots+1\neq0}_{n\text{ times}},\ldots$$
In a finite model this cannot happen, since we can only add $1$ to itself finitely many times before we reach some expression which we can prove is zero.
In the natural numbers we have the successor function $S$ which is described by the axioms as injective and that its image is every non-zero element. Again we can prove that there cannot be a finite model to this theory:
If there was a finite model, it would mean a finite domain for $S$, and on a finite set injectivity is equivalent to surjectivity. However $0$ is not in the image of $S$ therefore $S$ is not surjective, and in particular not injective. This cannot be true alongside with an axiom saying that $S$ is injective but not surjective.
Comment: By saying "since we can only add 1 to itself finitely many times before we reach some expression which we can prove is zero," do you mean that adding 1 to itself would at some point reach zero? Or do you mean that adding being finite is a problem?
Comment: @user1894: Consider the numbers $\{0,1,2,3,4\}$ with the usual addition and multiplication $\bmod 5$. It is not a hard exercise to see that this too is a field. However in this field $1+1+1+1+1=0$. In any ordered field we want to have $0<1$ and $a<b$ implies $a+1<b+1$. Now we have in the finite field: $0<1<1+1<1+1+1<1+1+1+1<1+1+1+1+1=0$, contradiction. Ordered fields, if so, cannot be finite for this very reason.


Area of something on the map when changing the scale

Question: If there was a lake that occupied $8$ squares, and the width/height of a square was $1km$, it would have an area of $8km^2$. What if the scale was $0.5km$ - the width/height of a square is only $0.5km$, would that mean the area of the lake will be $4km^2$ or $2km^2$?
Answer: If you multiply linear dimensions by $k$, you multiply area by $k^2$. Here, if I understand the question correctly, you are multiplying linear dimensions by $0.5$. So area is multiplied by $(0.5)^2$, which is $0.25$. The resulting area is $2$.
In this case, we can argue more simply. Each of the $8$ little squares has area $(0.5)^2$, so the total area is $8(0.5)^2$.
Answer: Hint: You double all lengths and you quadruple the area.
Comment: Or half all the lengths and quarter the area.
Answer: A more complicated argument just to complement...
If you take any shape in $\mathbb{R}^n$ that has area, and you scale the coordinates by $\lambda_1,...,\lambda_n$ respectively, then the area will scale by $\lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_n$. This follows from the change of variables theorem since the Jacobian of $\phi(x) = (\lambda_1 x_1,...,\lambda_n x_n)$ is $J_\phi (x) = \lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_n$.
In your example the shape is in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and you have $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \frac{1}{2}$. Hence the new area is $(\frac{1}{2})^2$ times the original area, ie, $2 \, \mathrm{km}^2$.
This works for any shape, of course.


Do compression socks help prevent shin splints?

Question: Will compression socks help prevent shin splints? The pain has been occurring on and off for a couple of months.
Answer: I've used compression socks in the past and personally found them very pleasant. One of the claimed advantages is that it restricts the swaying of your calf muscle which should help reduce the strain on your shins.
But as Plankalkül indicates there isn't any literature to support its effect on preventing injuries, but I found two blog posts (albeit rather old). The first post reviewed several studies
but most were focused on subjects with circulatory diseases and may not translate to athletes. He also came across one study by Ali on athletes that experienced a reduction in delayed-onset muscle soreness 24 hours after wearing compression stockings. Which would certainly indicate a speedier recovery as claimed by some of the stocking users.
The second blog post found two more articles which found no performance or physiological difference, but a reduction in DOMS 24 hours after exercise with compression socks. The second study tested athletes on a treadmill and found a small improvement in their performance.
I've checked some other blog posts and they all came to the same conclusion that there's a lot of controversy about them and that there's no proof that they help prevent injuries.
So you'll have to judge for yourself, I personally like them, but I haven't found any supporting evidence.

Ali A, et al. 2007. Graduated compression stockings: physiological and perceptual responses during and after exercise. J Sports Sci 25(4): 413-419.
Comment: Also, there is such a wide variety of causes for the pain that can be described as "shin splints". Even if compression socks were effective, I would expect it only to be effective for certain causes.
Answer: I just did a search on PubMed (which is always a good idea in cases like this) and couldn't find anything. So it seems like it hasn't been studied (or is just considered obviously useless). So in this case I would just assume the answer at this moment has to be: No it doesn't help.
Is there a reason think it could help?
Answer: I've found two things contribute to my shin splints - too tight or improperly laced shoes (also stuff like a too long or excessively stiff tongue), and a raised heel. When I wear shoes with neither (loose, flexible, minimalist shoes), I never have any shin splints.
That doesn't necessarily mean compression sleeves don't help, but if I'm to re-interpret your question as "How can I get rid of shin splints?" my suggestion would be to look at your shoes.


permission to use emails from famous deceased person

Question: I finished a creative non-fiction memoir about my secret life as a miracle worker.  I am using three emails to me from a now deceased wildly popular tech icon.  Our phone conversation as well as the emails are positive.  Do I need to contact his surviving wife?   This could delay my book publication.
Comment: Always nicer to get permission than fight a lawsuit.
Comment: My first thought was that, yes, of course emails are copyrighted. Works are copyrighted from the moment of their creation. But journalists that quote letters and emails almost certainly don't get permission, even when the quotes are embarrassing. Interesting question!
Comment: My first reaction would be to make sure you can prove the emails are genuine. More than I'd be concerned about violating copyright, I'd worry about a lawsuit if somebody thinks the emails are uncharacteristic and that you just made them up to support your narrative.
Comment: Are you reprinting the e-mails verbatim and in full, or only a few select fragments (like a few sentences to illustrate your point)?
Answer: I am not a lawyer, but...
From the website of the U.S. Copyright Office:
"One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."
Now for the analysis.  Memoirs and similar personal non-fiction books fall into a grey area of scholastic benefit.  They are intended for profit and for entertainment, but the subject matter is not truly educational in the way a textbook is.  A biography teaches us about the life of someone else, but that line is less distinct for autobiographies.  This is your weakest argument, but can still be reasonably argued with a straight face.
You are stronger on the remaining three elements of the balancing test.  The nature of the copyrighted work (emails) is not one that is typically thought of as protected.  The reasonable person would think nothing of forwarding an email someone else had written, thereby 'republishing' the initial work.  Emails typically are not written for profit and do not involve a large investment on the part of the writer.  This lack of expected protection translates into an easement of legal protection.
Item 3 in the balancing test, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, will depend on your usage.  Reprinting the entire email in total will afford you less protection than only quoting a line or two.  This is in relation to the size of the work, too, so quoting a single line could be a substantial part of a short email.
There is effectively no market for this particular email, so your reprint cannot possibly affect it.  This is not like reprinting a famous painting or republishing a book, where your action dilutes the income for the original writer.  Unless this particular 'tech icon' also sells collections of his own emails, this particular email should be fair game.
Taking all this together, you have a very strong case for saying your reprinting of the emails constitute fair use.  Strong enough that it would be unlikely to spark lawsuits.  I have to disagree with the comment that it's always better to get permission.  If it would be particularly difficult to get permission (as it would be from the widow of public figure who has no incentive to say 'Yes'), it might be far easier to simply reprint the email rather than jump through the hoops.  Doing so would also put you in a better legal state.  Republishing a work without permission is better than republishing a work against the express wishes of the family.
Finally, all of this discussion involves copyright law, which is why the phone calls are not covered - being oral and not written, copyright does not apply.  Defamation and fraud, however, applies to all of it.  Having the right to make a statement does not mean that statement will not still land you in hot water.


nearfield monitors

Question: I've put together a home recording studio - MacBook, Logic, Puredata - I need some monitors - probably active, nearfield monitors. Money is an issue, but I only want to do this once. Any advice would be appreciated.
Comment: The room is small (12*14 feet) - it has wood paneling on the lower half of the wall - no carpet, drapes, or soft furniture. The acoustics are bright. I'm using an apogee one audio interface.
Answer: What size room are you using?  How are the acoustics?  Do you have carpet? Drapes? Lots of furniture in the room?  Will you be using an audio interface or just coming straight out of your Macbook's headphone jack?
A Macbook with Logic is pretty powerful nowadays - lets get you setup with some sweet speakers to match!
Answer: That's a big question with too many variables. I can just suggest powered nearfield monitors and some brand name: genelec, adam audio, krk, yamaha, but there are loads of them...try to study datasheets and users experiences to find out the right choice for your money, place, space, power needed, etc...
Comment: I think that's what he's doing by posting the question...
Answer: I'd suggest checking Adam Audio monitors. For example the A7's are a great choice for relatively accessible price. The strongest argument is that they translate incredibly well to other systems. And they offer nice, clean, crisp and natural sound. No frequency is exaggerated or neglected. Very dependable, even in comparison to more expensive set-ups. Basically, it's difficult to make a mistake getting the A7's.
Answer: I've had really good results on a veeeery small room with a pair of cheapo Alesis MKII; they translated surprisingly well to larger rooms! I know lots of people who dislike them though.
Still, they work great for me, since i'm really used to them.
That said, auditioning speakers should be a very informative for you, if you can borrow a couple of pairs; its a very personal and subjective piece of your rig.
Comment: I've used the Alesis MK2. They exaggerate low frequencies and go easy on the highs. (having roughly the opposite experience at the moment with Genelecs)
Comment: That's why many people don't like them, but i think that's exactly why they translated well to other rooms, in my case, that is.
Or it might be a case where two wrongs make a right = bad room + bad speakers :D
Genelec were never a favorite for me... especially for the price
Comment: By the way, now i'm using a pair of home made speakers with Tannoy coaxial 8" drivers, believe it or not. Love them!
Answer: Do you have a budget?
The best thing to do would be to audition speakers. Check with you local dealer (of Adam/Dynaudio/Genelec) and try get them to give you a home demo of the speakers that fit within your budget. Listen to music you know or your previous work and make judgements on what you hear and how comfortable you feel with what you hear. If they let you keep the demo piece for a couple of hours then even better - design some sounds or mix a song and see how it translates. Nothing can teach you more about your room and speakers than listening to how your work translates in an other studio/listening space.
If you can't trust your judgement then get someone who's ears you can trust.
Even the most expensive speaker can sound crappy in the wrong setup/room.
Also try investing in a good pair of headphones which you can use for cross referencing. I never travel without mine.
Answer: I am a huge Genelec fan, they are on the more expensive end of the scale, but more than reliable enough to purchase second hand.  I have a pair of 1029As that were bought new and have been used almost everyday for seven years.  I find them to be accurate and not at all tiring on the ears.   I also use the newer 8030As, they are amazingly consistent, as I have access to 11 pairs and they all behave identically.
Answer: -for a low budget option i would go for yamahas HS50m's (5" woofer cause you have a relative small room so 8" woofer is mostly problems), cause they really give you crisp highs and in sound design i think you want clarity in high frequencies first of all. of course you have to get some headphones (for example DT-770Pro) that offer very good low frequencies.
-for a medium budget option i think Adams are THE option for me at least...
-and for a high budget i would definitely go for genelecs... anythink of this brand is awesome (i have worked with every monitor they make and i loved em...)
Answer: Consider the Mackie HR824. Those are something of a de facto standard in project studios. I have a pair, and I like them very much. Make sure to listen to anything before you buy it though.
Answer: From a low budget perspective, I ve heard a lot of good things about Blue Sky and KRK. Genelec are great from my point of view.
Since 2006 I m using a Klein and Hummel 0300D 5.1 system and I really love it. If you have the budget, you should check it out.

nearfield monitors


Tent and sleeping bag: pack inside or strap outside a backpack?

Question: When I bought my pack, we were told to always pack the tent and sleeping bag in the pack.  Since then I have seen a lot of articles and hikers doing the outside.  What are the benefits on packing the tent and sleeping bag in vs. strapping the tent and sleeping bag to the outside of the pack?
Comment: when your tent is soaked, you might strap it to the outside...
Answer: Outside

more room left inside for other stuff.
More likely to rip a hole in your gear when you toss your pack down.
More options for weight placement (which can lead to off-blanced pack.)
More likely to fall off.

Inside

Better protection from the elements, rocks, branches.
Weight is closer to your center of gravity (and usually better balanced).
Less room inside your pack.
Will never fall off.

Ultimately, it is a matter of personal preference, but I always encourage people to pack it inside -- and insist they do when borrowing my gear.
PROTIP: When forced to pack something outside (ie, external frame, or carrying too much stuff) always use closed loop tie-downs that are threaded through a closed loop on both your pack and your gear. That way, if the gear slides off without noticing, it will still be chained to your pack.
Comment: If it doesn't fit inside your pack, you have one of two problems: either your pack isn't big enough, or you are carrying too much! Usually it's the second of the two.
Comment: In the South West USA I often use my EXTERNAL frame pack and then there is little choice. Outside, but I can keep it close to my center of gravity and balance the pack perfectly.
Comment: Also, having the tent parts separate in the backpack might help on the space.
Answer: If it fits, it's better to put it inside. That way it stays dry and is protected. If you put down your pack on rocks or small limbs, it can poke holes in the tent cover or sleeping bag cover if they are strapped to the outside. (In some conditions, a wet sleeping bag can be a safety issue.) The more tired I get, the harder my pack seems to hit the ground. Odd, huh?
Also, it's more comfy if you have the weight of the pack close to your back. When you strap heavy stuff on the outside, it moves the center of gravity away from you, which pulls harder on the shoulder straps.
Answer: One of my tents goes in my rucksack, but I have another one which has two carry bags which strap nicely to the sides of my rucksack, keeping the weight well balanced and close to me.
In dry conditions I'll strap the sleeping bag to the outside to make space, as it is light it doesn't affect the center of gravity much.
Center of gravity and keeping kit dry should be two important considerations. I have never had damage to kit from carrying it on the outside, but this should be a consideration if you are travelling in an area where there is a risk of snagging or tearing.
Answer: For me, the sleeping back is the most important thing to be kept dry, so it would be the last thing I would decide to strap outside.
It may be not the case if you have very durable waterproof bag for your sleeping bag.
Answer: I have the sleeping bag inside (must be kept dry, so there must be room for it).
And the tent under the pack in its stuffsack, (when wet I don't want it inside anyway) tied to the pack by running a strap through the drawcord and wrapping the tent and stuffsack inside my foam mat (if I bring it) and groundsheet to protect the tent.
Or in the outside net pocket if it needs drying.


Cost for drafting and filing a patent

Question: What is the average cost of drafting and filing a patent incurred when hiring an agent ? This can give an idea to me if I'm over charged for the service
Answer: Filing a patent as Small Entity

Basic filing fee - Utility (electronic filing): $70
Utility Search Fee: $300
Utility Examination Fee: $360

( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee010114.htm )
My patent attorney charges $6-8K for drafting a patent application, and $2K for each Office Action response. In my patents, the number of responses has been at least 2.
So the total cost would be around $10K
Comment: Each phase of the process takes time and expertise and the steps an application takes is highly dependent on what the particular examiner does. People get paid for their time and expertise.
Comment: Is it not an attorney's responsibility to guide you until you get the patent granted? Why would they charge for each office response ?
Comment: @George I can understand that patenting is a highly complex process.
Comment: @Outputlogic Can you please give a link to your Attorney ?
Comment: My patents are handled by Pillsbury Law: http://www.pillsburylaw.com/
Answer: Having written and prosecuted numerous applications over 25 years, be aware that pricing is dependent upon whether you are filing a mechanical, electrical, chemical, or biotechnological patent.  If the agent/attorney does not make that distinction, I would definitely seek one that does. Secondly, patentability searches search costs also depend on the field so if you are being quoted an across the board price for a search, that's another reason to get a second opinion. You can contract a comprehensive fee- filing and prosecution upfront or ask for it to be broken down to filing cost followed by separate prosecution cost.
Also find out who is actually doing the work- an associate working for a partner or an agent (just as good as an attorney and many times better) Don't pay partner rates for an associate/agent's work- ask how many partner hours will be billed to review the final product.

Cost for drafting and filing a patent


How to build a small set of steps/stairs

Question: I just had a paver patio installed and had the builder re-install the old wooden steps that he removed to do the work. We did this as a cost savings measure since stone steps would've doubled the price of the project. Now with this nice new patio, our old steps look pretty decrepit. I would like to replace the steps I have with something similar, maybe using a composite decking material if possible both for looks and for longevity. Can anyone provide some insight for a do-it-yourselfer? There are only about four steps/stairs that make up the unit.
Comment: most home centers sell precut stringers which is typically the tough part for a novice.
Comment: What is the total height (grade to landing)?
Comment: @Tester101 - I don't have the measurements with me at the moment but I'll update the question when I get home.
Comment: A picture with dimension might be useful, if you are looking for a very specific answer.
Answer: Your local home improvement store may have prefab/precut stair case parts for decks and they about the size you mention (3-4 steps).  You can purchase the stringers, and treads and attach them in place of your old stairs.
Answer: If you are looking for Prefab Stairs - you could search google
for "Prefab Stairs", there should be something for your area.
Or Make your own deck steps like the following:  (DIY LINK)
I would recommend that you search for "Landscaping Stairs: in google for some great ideas!
You can have a look with the following search - Google Image Search


Selling my guitar

Question: I want to sell a guitar, but I would like to know:

Where are good places to sell a guitar? Online? Guitar stores?
What is a good way to work out the value of the guitar?
Comment: Btw what type of guitar is it?
Answer: In my opinion the the quickest and easiest way to find a selling value for a guitar is to:

Go to ebay, and search the model.
Look at what the 'buy it now' prices are, or what people are bidding.

You could also check the small ads in the back of guitar magazines. 'Guitarist' run back page ads, and can be very useful in determining the value of a piece of guitar related gear.
Selling online in my opinion would be the best bet. Use eBay or another reputed auction site. Remember to post lots of pictures and information, being honest about the instrument
and posting a reasonable price.
Link: How to sell guitars on eBay
You can try guitar stores, but they can be very picky about what they do/don't take, particularly if the instrument is in less that near-perfect condition. Pawnshops are another route, as they are usually a bit less restrictive, but will probably not give you an altogether fair price for it.
The worst thing to do is to take it to a car-boot sale. Here people expect prices to be low, so you won't be getting the best price for your guitar.
Hope this helps.
Comment: Don't trust "Buy it now" prices. Those are often wildly speculative as people throw out a crazy price hoping someone will bite. Track some active auctions and watch where they end up. After several of them you'll have a decent idea for a price. Also, eBay recommends certain days for ending auctions as the prices will be better, so read their recommendations and compare with what you see at the end of the auctions, and adjust your expectations accordingly.
Comment: Also consider TheGearPage as a place to sell your stuff. It's a more trustworthy community than craigslist, and you don't have to go through all the fee mumbo jumbo that FleaBay asks of you.
Comment: Whenever browsing eBay to price things, I search the completed listings.  If someone's vintage guitar he's asking $2,500 for last sold for $800, I know not to be surprised later on.
Answer: Harmony-central.com is a good place.  They have a Classifieds section  I bought my first Gibson Les Paul from there.  A store will give you next to nothing for it.  My 900$ would only fetch about 250 when I asked at Willis Music.  Not bad mouthing them, but just goes to show you about retail!!
Ebay, Harmony-Central and Craigslist are good options.
Comment: Yeah retail shops will generally only buy at about half what they want to sell it for, unless you have something really special, and even then only specialist shops with make you on offer.
Answer: Another optional route in the US is to donate it and get the money back as a tax write off... I'm not sure how the rules change state to state but in North Carolina if you find a school that will accept it you can get a form to use as a tax write off that will get you a pretty accurate value of what it's worth. The only downside is that you don't get your money back right then.
Answer: Go check out http://rexbass.blogspot.com/. Rex has 5 blog posts about selling gear online. You can find links for part 1 - 5 in the right hand rail.
Generally guitar stores will "act" like a pawn shop when they buy your gear. Often times you won't get anywhere near the $ you'd get if you were to sell it yourself.
Another option is to consign you instrument at a local shop if they allow it. In this case you're not selling your gear to the shop... they sell it for you and take a cut of the sale price. This will generally yield quite a bit more money than selling it to them outright.
The Gear Page is another online community (alone w/ craigslist, ebay and harmony central) where you can sell your gear. The URL is: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/forumdisplay.php?f=22 . That forum's quite active & the only caveat is that you need to be a sponsoring member to post in the for sale section (about $20/yr).
Working out the value is just research. You can scour forums to get a flavor for what similar items have been selling for or check ebay's completed listings.
Answer: Craigslist or consignment are both good ideas because it allows a future buyer to actually try the instrument before they purchase it.
It's probably not that much of an issue for instruments priced at around a few hundred USD, but when that turns into thousands of USD, buyers might be reluctant to purchase at online stores--like ebay--without trying it, unless the seller has a fair return policy.
Answer: Here in the flemish part of belgium there's a rather large (over 5000 people) facebook group to sell/trade second hand guitar/music gear to eachother. It's invite only and that means the chances for frauds / scams are a lot smaller.
The cool thing is that everyone lives closeby so it's easy to come take a look at that obscure guitar/ pedal /...
Find out if there is one of those groups near you, and if not, start one, you might make a lot of new friends in the music scene around you doing so!

Selling my guitar


Help! Requesting a change of URL on Yahoo Directory!

Question: I submitted a couple websites on yahoo directory a month ago. For some reason, the url they listed was not the url I asked for, they listed the Japanese version instead of the submitted English version (this is a English directory so obviously it is a mistake).
I requested changes and was accepted. But the reality is they promised a change but it was never really done. I contacted them again and again through the 'request a change in URL' form, but there is no answer.
Is there any effective way that I can get to them? preferably a phone number or email?
Thanks a lot!
Answer: Yahoo is now powered by bing - have you tried using bing webmaster tools to request the change?


Are the Master destruction spells useful?

Question: I was wondering if the Master destruction spells are useful or just to show them off?
I'm asking because it takes ages to cast and you can't hold them neither precisely point (Lighting Storm)...
Have you ever used them with a purpose?
Comment: To those voting to close: remember, there is such a thing as Good Subjective - and I'm not even convinced that this question couldn't be answered purely by mathematical analysis anyway. Don't get thrown by a turn of phrase.
Comment: To be able to cast the master spells (fire storm, etc.) Without being interrupted, you can use the "Become Ethereal" shout ^_^
Comment: I feel they are too situational to be truly useful. Then again, Destruction magic becomes horribly outclassed by properly smithed melee weapons and bows. A sneak attack with a dagger does over 3500 points of damage if you have the perks, and that's without fortify archery enchantments (Yes, daggers are affected by fortify archery, not one handed. Go figure). What does investing into magicka most of your level-ups, getting the expert perks and augmented x? About 600 points of damage spread across 5 seconds, and then you're empty. Useless. Now paralyze is a different story...
Answer: I used them for the lols during fort attacks in the Stormcloak/Imperial war quests, since there are a lot of targets around you. You can also sneak up to groups of enemies while stealthy/Invisible and let off one of them to start the fight.
Other than that, I didn't use them much, for the reasons you mentioned. Of all the perks they put in the game, I don't know why there isn't a perk to make winding up Master spells faster. You're really vulnerable while preparing and holding them, since you can't move.
Comment: I feel this answer sums it all up. Maths apart, it takes indeed long time to cast and when you find 4+ enemies you should be invisible to effectively put yourself in the middle. If Blizzard has got an explanation, fire storm is an AoE bomb, why at least lighting storm can't be targeted?
Answer: They are useful in two cases:

You want to maximize Area Of Effect damage/effect.  Extremely useful for clearing a room full of Draugr or other high quantity low level situation.  Blizzard and Lightning Storm are useful to get their effects onto a group of baddies.
You want to maximize Damage Per Second.  Incinerate is surely better DPS in a 1-1 situation, Fire Storm is certainly better in a 10-1.  At some point there is a line (which can be calculated with the casting/delay times) where the master spells become better DPS.

Like yx mentions, Fire Storm costs 0 magicka if you've made 2000 'iron daggers of elite banishment' (100 enchanting). And its fun as hell to cast and watch everything burn.
Answer: From a purely mathematical/mage perspective:
The higher the spell the less efficient. See below:

Firebolt - 41 Magika - 25 damage - 1.64 Magika/damage ratio
Fireball - 86 Magika - 40 damage - 2.15
Incinerate - 171 Magika - 60 damage - 2.85
Fire Storm - 1426 Magika - 100 damage - 14.26

1426 Magika used to do 100 damage with Fire Storm.
164 Magika used to do 100 damage with Firebolt.
It seems that the most useful spells are Novice level. Of course, with certain perks and armor this can be changed.
Personal note: Using Impact perk I can effectively infinitely immobilise 2 enemies with Firebolts and sure they don't do damage as quickly, but eventually I can wear them done to death. But shooting a Fire Storm I have to run away to recharge my mana (for 20 minutes).
Comment: less efficient, but what about for DPS purposes?  Lets assume he's got -100% destruction cost gear, which isn't that hard to get.
Comment: This is why I said "With certain perks and armor this can be changed". My answer doesn't cover every possibility, it only covers fire destruction and assumes no -xxx% desruction. The complexities of the game, (enchanted armor, total magika, magika regen, destruction skill, perks, one hit kills, handling multiple enemies,  etc.) would make that answer prohibitivly long... That's why my answer focused on magika efficiency of master level spells compared with lower level spells which is important for mages both in single combat and against multiple enemies.
Comment: +1 because we need the numbers here, but I don't think a longer explanation would be prohibitively long. DPS does need to be addressed (as Fire Storm is _very_ AOE -- and actually does more than 100 damage for those close to you), and there are many qualifiers to the "less efficient" assertion: a) enemies regen, and b) enemies deal damage _to you_ the longer they're alive. In my experience, Incinerate is great for dealing with individuals, and Fire Storm is great for when mobs close. By the time you have them, you should have halfway decent magicka regen/fortify destruction.
Comment: According to UESP, Fire Storm is 100 damage centered on the caster, and can be 50/25 depending on how far away you are.  But I do agree that an answer that actually did the real math (with some assumptions of course) would be best.  I also agree its fair to assume magicka is not an issue for most characters with Destruction > 90.
Comment: Please make extra consideration for spells with AOE(area of effect). Fireball does the same damage to all targets within a 15 foot radius. Firestorm does 100 damage to everything within 100 feet of you, an extra 75 damage to those within 65 feet of you, and another 50 damage to those within 25 feet of you. All these numbers can be buffed by the Augment Flames perks, as well as the Aspect of Terror perk in Illusion. They can also be enhanced with fortify destruction potions(by 198% to almost 3x damage for me) and by the Ahzidal dragon priest mask in the Dragonborn DLC.
Answer: Master spells HAVE to be cast dual hand, but do not seem to benefit from dual cast bonus. DPS of those spells is just poor. I'm pretty sure I'd get more DPS spamming dual cast Fireballs than through Firestorm and it's a LOT safer, it staggers them through impact and is ranged. There's also the issue that trying to hit 10 targets with a single Firestorm will never happen on it's own because you'll get interrupted before you can pull it of.
For sure I get better DPS spamming dualcast Thunderbolt (expert lightning spell) than the Master Lightning Storm as I could test against an Ancient Dragon.
Cast time wrecks the usability of those point blank master spells. Unless you got the Invisibility spell to back them up, I've practically never managed to charge up Firestorm in melee range because most attacks on you would interrupt it. I've given up using Lightning Storm against all far away humanoid opponents either because they'd just pull a bow and hit me every 3s with it which cuts a cast that lasts 5s ... It works great to kill Dragons in flight though because of it's LONG range and pinpoint accuracy.
Soo, I'd say about those spells :
- Lightning Storm is used to snipe dragons in flight but only if you can maintain it running for the full kill
- Firestorm is rather weak and hard to place because of interrupts, try to combo it with Invisibility
- Blizzard, well I don't like cold spells because it feels like half the fights I do are ancient tombs filled with Draugr or Dwemmer ruins filled with constructs. Also, it kills my companion.
Comment: A single word of Become Etherial is more than enough to get off a master level spell without getting hit.
Answer: Lightning storm in particular kills dragons pretty quickly. And fire storm is useful if you begin to be surrounded. You could also use blizzard.
Answer: Well as some one who just found out how useless the master spells are (except the illusion ones), high perked expert spells work much better for fights. Especially if you don't use helper NPCs.
Having upped lightning damage, dual casting, impact, disintergrate and of course
4 enchantments: 25% less destruction SP cost on armor, helmut, ring and necklace.
Lightning storm against a big enemy I would need a long distance, and it doesn't utilize impact or dual spell. It actually kills slower than Thunderbolt most of the time, and forget crowds.
Thunderbolt on the otherhand I meet ancient dragons and if timing your shots right they don't get to do anything, Impact perk with heavy damage he just staggers. I could literally have no armor and it's still unfair for the dragon.
Even crowds are fun with that set up since everyone gets stunned, just change your aim every shot or so.
I actually started thief and bow/dagger, but got enough levels I rage with mage, I use thief/bows for dungeons and magic when crap hits the fan or dragons/big stuff needs death.
Answer: With enchanted armor reducing destruction costs to 0, Lightning Storm is fun to endlessly wail on a mob of opponents, but impractical since you can't move.  Personally, I find dual casting Wall of Storms to be more effective, since I can move around while casting, and it doesn't have a charge up time.  Just aim it directly at the enemies instead of at the ground. Bonus: You get to feel like an all powerful Sith Lord!
Answer: In my opinion Master spells, especially blizzard and fire storm, are epic if used in the way that I use them. What you'll want to do is create potions of fortify destruction, and drink one before casting the Master spell. If you aren't concerned about exploiting an unfair advantage, then use the fortify restoration glitch to increase your alchemy to godly status before creating the fortify destruction potions. A fire storm or blizzard (being AoE spells), if used with this method, can inflict up to 1000000000 or more damage in your AoE. That's how I use them, that's just me.
Answer: Lightening storm is useful to get the drop on dragons, giants, and things of the such. I've also noticed that if you're really close to enemies firestorm does a LOT more than 100 damage, but its still not very practical.
Ice storm and fireball give you most efficiency. If you have perks and gear then incinerate/icy spear/thunderbolt (same thing just different elements) are, but dual casting isn't smart.
Answer: These Master level spells seem to be, to me, customized for special and specific situations.
I find myself using Firestorm often when surrounded by Draugr. I use both mouse buttons at the same time and rarely have to cast anything else because they all die.
Blizzard is the same for me but I have been using it mostly in open ground, outside, and I always seem to be surrounded by bandits, go figure.
Lightning Storm is my favorite. If you keep aware of your surroundings and time it right, it kills everything. I really do feel like a god or something using it. I have used both mouse buttons to try to dual cast it and I have been getting Impact staggering with the spell, especially on dragons; I don't think that's caused by any of my mods.
Answer: Personally, I think the master destruction spells are best used with dragons. They become much less useful in other situations. If you time them right you can cast them right when the dragon lands next to you. Some people claim they don't like them because they kill their companions. However, I have never run into this problem. Every time I have used them my companion was right next to me and didn't affect their health at all. It may hurt them when they are kneeling though. That is something I haven't come to experience yet.
Answer: If you have a lot of far enemies and you have daetdric armour enchanted with reduce distruction and conjuration spell to 100/100 less I would say lightning storm is good and best is when you use dragonrend on a dragon and then use the spell blizzard on it s landing spot then use the lightning storm on it while keeping him on the blizzard spot the when he is staggerd use the incenerat or ice spear to do instant damage it would be the best now if you master destruction spells cost arround 200 per second then forget it but mostly best when fighting a powerful enemy just summon to storm thralls to keep the enemy busy while you use master destruthio and if you wanna get a filled soul gem and you have the perks of bound weapons it would be good because all you do is hit your thralls send them back to where they came and hit the enemy and here you are with a filled soul gem and if you are very very selfish and don t wanna use your arrowes just use bound bow.
Iow if you are tired and wanna be bossy just use storm thrall and wait untel 1 dies and resummon an other one but if u want to stay on your spot like a turret use lightning storm and if you want a pure war go to a city kill someone do not pay you bounty conjure atronaches(and two if you have twin souls) use sanguin rose get a mage followers and call you dragon then call a hero of valor the mage one this would be the most epic war ever.
But if you want a very funny fight use myhem on the guards of a city and if you do not laugh you are stupped.
Answer: The only thing that I find lame about the destruction master spells is that they are not affected by dual casting... But if you go to "Dragonhide", one of the master spells for alteration, You can enhance the duration to a minute. I'm still trying to figure out what master spells are affected by the dual casting. : / But anyway, I never really use blizzard or firestorm because they damage my followers. But lightning storm is pretty beastly against dragons and other magick using beasts.


What do I need to do to enable my site to accept credit cards?

Question: I want to store my customers' credit card information in my database so that they can quickly check out again without having to re-enter their info. What do I need to know about security/https/etc to make sure this is secure and trustworthy (and also legal)?
Answer: PCI Compliance is a good place to start.
Comment: that's a great link
Answer: I've used Authorize.Net on many e-commerce projects and have never been anything less than thrilled with their service and security. Actually, their security is so good that it can be a little annoying at times. But I suppose that's a good problem to have.
They have a ton of options, from a real easy "transfer control from your site to ours" for credit card processing to a completely customizable "roll your own" service with a rich (and slightly complex) API.
The back-end processing is full featured as well, letting you (or the business owner) have complete control over settling transactions, issuing credits, and so on.
It's real nice.
Answer: I've heard nothing but good things about Braintree.
They break down PCI compliance to the basics - if it enters your environment, you need to be compliant. As a result they have a solution that eliminates you needing to worry about it by posting sensitive information directly to them!
Answer: We are using cybersource for all of our payment and transaction needs. By using cybersource you don't need to store your customer's credit card information in your database and you still can let them pay with their credit cards.
Comment: I believe cybersource is a reseller for authorize.net. So aren't they are essentially the same service?
Answer: For anyone in the UK - we use SagePay who basically offer the same as Braintree.
They allow you to bypass PCI Compliance by storing all of the secure information for you.


Should you avoid cooling a frying pan with water?

Question: Sometimes after I fry something, I wash it immediately in water because it's a bit easier to wash (before the remains stick to the pan).
Does this damage the pan in any way?
Answer: If you cool a pan too quickly it could deform, especially if your using a cheap pan. A cast iron pan could crack. This is most likely to happen if you dip a hot pan in cold water.
If you want to get a jump-start on cleaning, de-glaze the pan with a cup of water as you would when making gravy. Pour off this liquid and set the pan aside to cool completely.
Comment: Yeah, de-glazing a pan always ruins it...
Comment: @Didgeridrew It looks like you implicitly approved (by amending) a suggested edit from an anonymous user that was actually an attempt to reply to this post. (It adds a sentence to the last paragraph that contradicts it.) Might want to be a little more cautious going through the queue!
Answer: This would depend on the kind of pan, the heat level of the pan, and the coldness of the water, if any of these are at real extremes, but I'm guessing that in most cases, you will not have a big problem with pan damage. Make sure there is not a lot of hot fat in the pan when you add the water (which would cause spatters ), but that's more of a personal safety issue than a pan damage issue.  There are other things in a kitchen that I'd worry about much more than pan damage (dull knives, for example)
Answer: Heated metal will move towards the source of the heat causing the valley in the middle of cheap cook ware. The heated bottom side is hotter than the inner surface of the pan and expands more.
If heated and cooled slow this is much less likely to occur.
 Cooking at too high a temperature and pouring water in the pan while very hot will cause this type warp.
When I was first married my wife, we had cheap aluminum cookware. She was always warping the bottoms. About once a month I would take the clean skillet and get it quite hot, then holding the pan with a thick oven mit turn it upside down and run very cold water on the bottom of the pan.
I may have to do the trick three or four times but eventually the bottom would be flat as new till she burned something and poured cold water in it again.
Be prepared for a lot of steam:
I wore a light jacket when pouring the water on the hot pan to keep the hot steam off my arms (as well as the aforementioned oven mit)
DON'T TRY THIS WITH CAST IRON COOKWARE
Answer: Devin_S' answer is a good one but as he said, be cautious if you are using a cheap pan. I use cast iron and carbon steel pans mainly and occasionally very thick bottomed stainless. When I finish cooking (frying or otherwise), as soon as I remove the food I use paper towels to absorb any  oil and then add just enough water to coat the bottom of the pan, then only a light scrape is required to loosen any stuck bits. You can then allow the pan to cool and wash it after dinner. I only use soap on my cast iron or carbon steel pans if they are really a mess. Washing with soap 'could' cause food to stick to the pan but I just season with oil, reheat the pan and allow it to cool again before storing it. I've been doing it this way for years using the same pans and my Mother did it this way before me and her Mother before her. Never had a pan warp or crack.


Confusion about P=VI and V=IR

Question: If we look at $P=VI$, we see that if the current doubles then the potential difference is halved
but this doesn't seem to make sense according to $V=IR$. If we look at that equation, since the resistance remains constant, doubling the current should increase the potential difference. Can someone explain what I'm misunderstanding in simple terminology?
Answer: When you say "we see that if the current doubles then the potential difference is halved," you're assuming that $P$ is fixed, whereas when you say "doubling the current should increase the potential difference" you're assuming $R$ is fixed. But in fact, it isn't possible to change the current while keeping both of these things constant.
Let us assume that we're actually keeping $R$ fixed, i.e. we're working with a normal resistor. Let's try to work out what happens to the power if we increase the current. Then we have $V=IR$, and we also have $P=IV$. Substituting the first into the second, we have that $P=I^2R$. So if you double the current, the power will increase by a factor of four.
So for a fixed resistor, the power doesn't stay constant, and that's why the potential difference isn't halved when you double the current.
Answer: Your confusion probably stems from the fact that you are not looking at $P$ being fixed.
If you double the current, but want power to remain constant, then voltage must be halved.
Sometimes the mechanics of the math alone can cause confusion, but if you try to relate it to what is physically going on, it helps to clear things up.

Confusion about P=VI and V=IR


thermodynamics in air and water

Question: In perspective of thermodynamics,a person can survive a temperature of twenty degrees Celsius in air, but a person cannot survive in water with same temp.(it's not because he can't breathe) why is that in perspective of thermodynamics??
Answer: This is really just an expansion on cb3's answer:
The (obvious) reason why you can't survive in water at 20C is that you lose heat to the water faster than the body can generate it. The thermal conductivity of the water does play some part in this, but it's a small part because you mainly lose heat by convection rather than conduction. Your body heats the water around it and that water rises and generates a water flow around you.
The main reason you lose heat faster in water than in air is that it has a much higher specific heat. The specific heat of water is 4.2kJ/kg and the specific heat of air is about 1kJ/kg. However the important figure is really specific heat per unit volume because it's the volume rate of the flow around you that matters. This is 4.2MJ/m$^3$ for water and about 1kJ/m$^3$ i.e. a water flow extracts about 4,000 times as much heat from you.
Answer: The thermal conductivity of water is much higher than that of air. Stagnant water at 20C will draw heat out of the body faster than stagnant air at the same temperature.

thermodynamics in air and water


Where is the particle during a tunneling event?

Question: If, say, a particle with energy $E<V_0$, approaches a finite potential barrier with height $V_0$, and happens to tunnel through, where would the particle be during the time period when it is to the left of the potential barrier and to the right of the potential barrier? Surely there must be a finite amount of time for it to travel through to the other side, unless it simply teleports there? If it travels through with energy less than $V_0$, however, doesn't that mean it cannot enter in the region of the potential barrier?
Comment: It is precisely where its probability density is telling you it should be; there are no additional special effects here that differ from other QM situations. Why do you think it is a problem for it be located inside of the barrier? That location is only *classically* unreachable. But this is quantum mechanics...
Comment: Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/11188/2451 and links therein.
Answer: Isn't the whole point here that one cannot say where the particle IS exactly? One can only calculate the probabilities of it being at one place.
Tunneling means the probability of it being inside the barrier isn't zero (since we want the probability distrubition to be continuous). There is always penetration of the wave function into the barrier.
IMHO tunneling means the penetration goes deep enough to actually reach the other side, so the wave function of the particle is propagated further on that side too, meaning there's a chance the particle went through. During the passing the particle has had a chance of being inside the barrier.
I don't know if it's correct to say that when the particle has passed, it has been inside the barrier, but that just because the notion of the particle actually being somewhere is somewhat wrong.
Answer: As Marek sais, the particle may be found "inside" the barrier, if you like. It means you can really find it there as well as outside. But in QM a particle is a wave and is "created" by the whole volume involved. It is not permanently "localized" or "concentrated".
Answer: "…where would the particle be during the time period when it is to the left of the potential barrier and to the right of the potential barrier?"
The answer is in the barrier as others above have stated.
I think a key point that would help (IMHO) to explain what is meant by locating a particle in the barrier. Since the particle's wave function has some probability of being in the barrier then in quantum mechanics one should be able to observe it in the barrier. So to observe this negative kinetic energy particle in the barrier, one has to localize it.  To localize implies to shine a short enough photon in order to locate the particle inside the barrier. When this is done, the negative kinetic energy particle now has an increase in energy from the photon; therefore, the negative kinetic energy particle now has acquired a positive kinetic energy and is found outside the barrier, not in the barrier. So the information of this positive energy particle tells us the details of the particle in the barrier.
Answer: The question "how long does it take for the particle to tunnel?" seems to be  more interesting than "where is the particle during a tunneling". Quantum mechanics predicts that for an opaque barrier the delay time is independent on the length of the barrier (see Hartman effect) with the obvious problems when the barrier becomes very long.


Is there any way to move apps to my sd card in android 2.1 on my phone?

Question: Is there any way for me to move apps to my sd card in android 2.1 on my phone?  Everything I've read so far just talks about how easy it is to do it in 2.2.  I have a Milestone, but apparently my carrier is not yet able to support 2.2.   Am I just pretty much screwed until it does?
Comment: Possible duplicate: http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/3436/how-to-install-apk-files-on-sdcard
Comment: @AlEverett This is not a duplicate. This question discusses ways to move apps to SD on Android 2.1 or lower. App2sd was introduced with Android 2.2
Comment: Then how about this nearly-identically-titled question? http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/3961/is-there-any-way-to-move-apps-to-my-sd-with-android-2-1
Answer: You would have to root your phone and partition your SD card.  Note that the app itself must also support running from the SD card.  See this XDA thread for an example of how to do it for the Milestone.
Answer: If you're using Android 2.1 you can use Link2SD app.
To use this application your phone must be rooted and your SDCard should have ext2 [OR] ext3 partitions.
After successful installation of this application, it creates a Auto mount script and asks for reboot the phone.
How to move already installed applications to SDCard ?
Open the Link2SD application and Open the Menu. Select the Filter and Select Not Linked User filter. The menu gets closed and shows the list of applications that are installed by the User. Now select any application and Select Create Link option on the screen. It asks for confirmation. Once you say Ok then moves the application and related files into the SD Card.
How to automatically move the Applications that are about to Install ?
Open the Link2SD application and Open the Menu. Now select Settings and there is an option in Settings called Auto Link. Check that option. Thats it it moves the applications to SDCard as soon as they installed on Phone Memory.
Tools to Partition the SDCard
There are tools available to partition your SDCARD. On Windows Machine you can use Minitool Partition software and on linux you can use gparted.


Henselian couples and finite etale morphisms

Question: Let $S$ be a scheme and $S_0 \subset S$ a closed subscheme. Then $(S, S_0)$ is said to be a Henselian couple if for every finite $X \rightarrow S$, setting $X_0 := X\times_S S_0$, the natural map from the clopen subsets of $X$ to those of $X_0$ is bijective. An example is a Henselian local (or semilocal) ring and its maximal (or radical) ideal; in fact, this is one of the equivalent definitions of a Henselian local ring. For this choice, EGA IV 18.5.15 proves that the base change functor is an equivalence of categories between finite etale $S$-schemes and finite etale $S_0$-schemes. More generally, base changing this choice along a proper $X \rightarrow S$ one obtains other examples of Henselian couples for which the same conclusion holds; these are of relevance for the proper base change theorem in SGA 4, Exp. XII. My question is: does the conclusion about the equivalence of categories of finite etale schemes hold for arbitrary Henselian couples or are there counterexamples? EGA IV 18.5.16 remarks that this is not known, but what is the status of the question today?
Answer: At least when $S$ is affine, this follows from work of Elkik. However, in this case, it seems that one can also argue directly as explained below.
[ It's surprising this argument is not in EGA, so please read critically.]

Say $S = \mathrm{Spec}(A)$ and $S_0 = \mathrm{Spec}(A/I)$ with $A$ henselian along $I$. I will use a subscript $0$ to denote passage to the fibre over $S_0$ on $S$-schemes, and implicitly use that any finite $S$-schemes $T$ is henselian along $T_0$.
The goal is to show that every finite etale map $Y_0 \to S_0$ lifts to a finite etale map $Y \to X$. (The full faithfulness part is easy from basic properties about henselian pairs.)
By limit arguments, one may assume that $A$ is noetherian for convenience. (Indeed, we may write any pair $(B,J)$ can be written as a filtered colimit of pairs $(B_i,J_i)$ with $B_i$ noetherian. Now observe that the inclusion of henselian pairs in all pairs is fully faithful, and has a left adjoint given by henselization.)
Begin by picking an etale map $Y' \to S$ extending $Y_0 \to S_0$ (this is elementary, see http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04D1). Using Zariski's main theorem for $Y' \to S$, we can find a factorization
$$Y' \stackrel{j}{\to} \overline{Y'} \stackrel{\pi}{\to} S$$
with $j$ an open immersion, $\pi$ a finite morphism, $Y' \to S$ etale and $Y'_0 = Y_0$. Restricting $j$ to $S_0$ gives an open immersion $j_0:Y_0 \to \overline{Y'}_0$ of finite $S_0$-schemes, so $j_0(Y_0)$ is clopen in $\overline{Y'}_0$. As $\overline{Y'}$ is henselian along $\overline{Y'}_0$, there is a unique clopen subset $\overline{Z} \subset \overline{Y'}_0$ such that $\overline{Z}_0 = Y_0$ as clopen subsets of $\overline{Y'}_0$. Intersecting the above factorization with $\overline{Z}$ gives a factorisation
$$ Z \stackrel{k}{\to} \overline{Z} \stackrel{f}{\to} S$$
such that $k$ is an open immersion, $f$ is finite, $Z := \overline{Z} \cap Y'$ is etale over $S$, and $Y_0 = Z_0 = \overline{Z}_0$ (as $Y_0 = \overline{Z}_0$ and $Y_0 \subset Z_0 \subset \overline{Z}_0$ by construction). Then $\overline{Z} - Z$ is a closed subset of $\overline{Z}$ that misses $\overline{Z}_0$. As $\overline{Z}$ is henselian along $\overline{Z}_0$, this means that $\overline{Z} = Z$, so $Y := \overline{Z}$ solves the problem.
Comment: That's a nice argument! Thanks! Since the latter part of the argument does not seem to use affineness, I guess it shows that at least in the Noetherian case one is done as long as one manages to lift every finite etale $Y_0 \rightarrow S_0$ to an etale (but not necessarily finite) $Y^{\prime} \rightarrow S$.
Answer: The henselian pair question is in a paper of Gabber "Affine analog of the proper base change theorem" footnote on page 326. See also Lemma Tag 09ZS. Please also look further in Gabber's paper where he discusses combining the henselian pair picture with the proper base change theorem.


Does Ubuntu detect and recognize Windows phones?

Question: I recently bought a Nokia Lumia with Windows Phone 8 OS on it; and now I'm planning to install Ubuntu on my Laptop.
My concern is, does Ubuntu detect or recognize Windows phone?
Answer: Simply put: yes this works in Ubuntu.
--
So I have been given a Nokia 520 as a works mobile.
I have a works laptop running Windows 7 and am running Xubuntu Raring in VirtualBox.
As far as I'm aware it's an unupgraded version of Xubuntu so this is good for a freshly downloaded disc.
I actually plugged the device in and told VirtualBox to pass through the USB connection to the VM.
In the file manager (Thunar) I can see the phone appear and when I open it a second root filesystem shows.
On opening this I see the media (piccies/vids/music) appear in a tree.
I can select these files and copy then to a folder in Ubuntu.
So the answer is: this works with Windows Phone 8 in Xubuntu Raring without any extra software.
Probably works in Ubuntu too, but I didn't try that.
I'm quite pleased I don't have to install Zune in Windows or use SkyDrive or summat.
What pleases me the most is not having to set up a Microsoft account and have to agree to share information with Microsoft, just to get my vids and piccies off the phone.
Answer: Well, my Windows 7 has a hard time to recognize my Lumia via USB or bluetooth. A sync of Outlook calendar only works with ad-hoc network (need a third party program for that!) and then Akruto (cannot access company's Exchange server), so I'd be very surprised if Ubuntu will work so much better than Microsoft's own products, which are mostly disfunctional for my purposes. The same can be said for OneNote, I`ve even tried manual upload to Skydrive to exchange files, to no avail.
Getting a Lumia to work with Win 7 is a disaster.


Troubleshooting bioconjugates migration in a SDS-PAGE gel?

Question: We do a lot of bioconjugation chemistry (click chemistry in particular but also NHS and Maleimide chemistries). Our method to valid the conjugation reactions have been to use SDS-PAGE gels followed with densitometry. However one particular challenge with such analyses is that proteins conjugated with non-proteins like DNA or PEG migrate with an inconsistent MW and also in a smear making it hard to isolate the relevant bands. I assume that this has to do with having a poly-disperse radius of gyration. Are there tricks that I can do to get tighter bands?
Comment: where would the poly-disperse radius of gyration arise from if the molecules are coated with SDS?
Comment: @Ben, my hypothesis: SDS disrupts hydrophobic interactions as a surfactant. However, something like DNA has purely enthalpic interactions and will not undergo denaturation or be evenly coated by SDS. This is the underlying roots of my problems.
Answer: The first step in troubleshooting is to run controls - run lanes with your protein input alone, and the conjugate alone (you may need to play with the type/percentage of the gel if the conjugate molecule is much smaller than your target protein - attaching biotin to a 50 kDa protein, for example) to see if the smear shows up. Depending on the type of conjugation you're using, the number of acceptor sites on the substrate, and the time and conditions of the conjugation reaction, you may be adding a highly variable number of conjugate molecules to your substrate. For example, when I first started working with adding fluorophores like Alexa and DyLight dyes to antibodies, the fluor/protein ratio was highly variable from reaction to reaction and between antibodies in the same reaction.
This is most likely what is happening in your case - the number of conjugate molecules being added to each substrate molecule is highly variable. If you haven't already, I'd suggest getting in touch with your conjugation kit vendor's tech support, as they likely encounter this problem all the time. You may need to change the type of conjugation chemistry, get a higher-quality conjugate, or purify the substrate before and/or after the reaction. One of the solutions to my antibody labeling problem I mentioned above was to purify the reaction products through a size-exclusion column. This had the dual effect of separating out the un-reacted antibody and fluorophore, and allowing us to pick different fractions of the conjugated product and decide which were best for our needs.
Comment: +1 Thanks! Issues with the suggestions so far. a) we're not conjugating a protein to another protein so standard commassie staining will not stain the conjugate molecule. b) we are the vendor since everything is done inhouse. c) While we can easily separate the reacted molecules from the unreacted, this doesn't answer the problem of quantifying the extent of the reaction.


Memorizing theorems

Question: I always have trouble memorizing theorems.  Does anybody have any good tips?
Comment: (meta) This question was posted in the first days of MO and has recieved a lot of answers and upvotes. I am sure that this sort of question would get closed if it was posted today ...
Comment: Meta discussion: http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1107/can-we-close-the-memorizing-theorems-question/
Answer: As far as possible, you should turn yourself into the kind of person who does not have to remember the theorem in question. To get to that stage, the best way I know is simply to attempt to prove the theorem yourself. If you've tried sufficiently hard at that and got stuck, then have a quick look at the proof -- just enough to find out what the point is that you are missing. That should give you an Aha! feeling that will make the step far easier to remember in the future than if you had just passively read it.
Answer: I'm teaching a course right now in which many students face these issues for the first time.
I have to care about something to remember it; otherwise I am utterly incapable of memorizing anything.  My main method to care about a proof is to want to be convinced of the thing being proved, the way that a trial jury wants to be convinced.  If the stated theorem just isn't news to you, ask yourself if you know whether it remains true if you change it slightly.  Would the same proof still work?
Example 1: det(AB) = det(A)det(B) for square matrices.  It seems completely unreasonable to dismiss a theorem like this as "obvious".  If you haven't learned a proof, then the only evidence left is argument by example and argument by authority.  Many variations of this equation certainly aren't true, so why is this one true?  The goal is to learn the proof well enough to be able to persuade someone else who doesn't believe you.
Example 2: Every fraction is a repeating decimal.  This is a familiar fact and we all "know" it.  So make a variation to have something more newsworthy to prove.  If every a/b must be a repeating decimal, then presumably you can find a bound for when it starts to repeat.  For instance, it seems unlikely that 1/29 requires a million digits to start to repeat.  Does the proof that a/b must repeat establish a reasonable bound on when?
Comment: Yes and no.  First, the volume argument doesn't tell you the signs.  Second and more significantly, how do you define volume in n dimensions in the first place?  You need some rudimentary theory of measure or integration in n dimensions, and that isn't really any easier than the fact about determinants.  The volume argument is very nice, but it is only "obvious" at a very non-rigorous level.
Comment: If you think of det(A) as the amount which volumes are scaled by the transformation A, and you know that matirx multiplication is composition of functions, isn't det(AB) = det(A)det(B) pretty obvious?
Comment: You don't need a full theory of measure or integration to appreciate the relevant basic properties of signed volume of parallelotopes given by n vectors (just that it is alternating multilinear), which is all you need to rigorously define the determinant as "volume-scaling" (thus making the composition rule obvious).
Comment: (In other words, defining det(A) as the amount by which elements of the top exterior power are scaled by the transformation A)
Answer: I appreciate the sentiment that you shouldn't memorize theorems, but I think it goes too far.  Some theorems are just not that memorable. You can prove them over and over and they don't stick.  And if you use a theorem repeatedly, it's worthwhile to memorize it so that you won't have to interrupt the flow of your thought to look up or derive the result.
Diagrams sometimes help.  For example, here's a diagram of relationships between probability distributions that I've often referred to. And here's a diagram relating various modes of convergence.
Comment: +1 for the first sentence.  Memorization is certainly not a substitute for understanding -- and really, who would ever claim that it is? -- but it's sometimes just so useful!

Especially in areas like real analysis where theorems can have multiple hypotheses and omitting even one of them can render the theorem false (think Dini's Theorem), sometimes it just saves time and stress to sit down one day and memorize it.

Also, the "modes of convergence" diagram is wonderful.
Comment: Nice diagrams, John!
Answer: The only way I ever really understand a theorem is by blogging about it; this is what I did with the Polya Enumeration Theorem, for example, whose proof I hadn't followed very closely in my algebraic combinatorics class.  They say the best way to learn something is to teach it, after all.
An interesting side effect is that usually while writing up the post I realize that the concept I'm trying to discuss relates to a lot of other things I'm interested in.  Once I can place a theorem in a wide context like this it becomes much more meaningful.
Comment: If you don't want to make your math thoughts public, perhaps what would work just as well is a "math journal."
Answer: I have a pretty mediocre memory, so when I need to remember something I write it down.  The act of writing helps, and if I can keep my notes organized, then it's there next time I need it.  Also, if you really do need to memorize your theorems (for a test, for example), talking to yourself helps -- I used to review math to myself out loud in the shower and while walking to class.  Of course, you do risk being mistaken for a crazy mathematician that way ...
Those are both pretty generic pieces of advice, so here's some specific to math.  I found that time spent understanding definitions was more useful than time spent memorizing theorems.  If you only have a shaky grasp on what the words in a theorem mean, it's hard to remember it. A trivial example is that my calculus students always have trouble remembering that log(ab) = log(a) + log(b), but log(a+b) isn't log(a)log(b).  And unless you understand log and its relation to exp, there's no reason to think one should hold but not the other.  In this example, knowing a little history can help too; logs were used heavily by all scientists until about 50 years ago, because they make arithmetic reasonable, by turning multiplication into addition and exponentiation into multiplication.  So I try to get my students to remember that logs make hard things easier; then they have some framework to put this identity inside.
Answer: Try coming up with counterexamples when you remove hypotheses. Play with the mathematics. The best way to know a theorem is to prove it. Try coming up with a different proof. Explain the theorem to someone else. Ask yourself where the theorem is used later. Rewrite the statement of the theorem. Does it generalise? How does it fit into the theory? For every theorem you ought to come up with a few examples that illustrate it, or at least understand the ones explained in class or the book.
If you have to know a bunch of random proofs for a course, which isn't uncommon, then get together with some friends and take turns going over the proofs. Trying to memorise just the theorem statement without any idea of why it's useful or where it fits in won't get you very far, and won't be very motivating.
Answer: Sometimes you've just got to memorise that theorem, no matter that you can't figure out what it's about or what it all means.  In that case: put a tune to it.  It doesn't even have to fit it very well either.
If I were posting this anonymously, I'd say that you should turn it into something rude as you'd be guaranteed not to forget it.  But I'm not posting this anonymously so I shan't.  You didn't hear that from me.  I wasn't here.  Someone must've edited my post and put that in.
Answer: Theorems tell you something deep about the behaviour of the objects of study of a specific domain in mathematics.
Review the basics of how those objects behave, and understand the significance of what the theorem tells you:

is is something natural? why?
is it something surprising? why?
does this theorem provide you with some new tools in your use of those objects?
does this theorem provide link with a different domain, allowing you to use new knowledge in your domain? with what advantages?

Answering this type of questions will eliminate the need of memorizing, and indeed it will let you understand better what you are studying.
Most of all, have fun!
Answer: I tend to agree that, nine times out of ten, memorizing theorems is a Bad Thing. The best goal (IMO) is to get comfortable enough in your area and at your level that you can intuit whether or not some statement is true without necessarily knowing a proof (or an ad-hoc counterexample). Of course, you also want to know the best tools in your area, but that often comes with understanding it on a deeper level.
That said, yeah, there are often some technical theorems that are useful as black boxes (examples: Wagner's/Kuratowski's theorem in graph theory, the classification of finite simple groups, maybe structure theorems in closely related areas to the one in which you work), but if you use them often enough that it's an actual hassle to look up their statements, and they're reasonably simply stated, you'll probably memorize them through sheer force of habit.
So how do you get a feel for your corner of mathematics? Well, you just do math. When you read a paper, try to stay a step or two ahead of the author. (I don't remember who said this -- maybe it was in Terry Tao's excellent career advice page -- but this is a can't-lose proposition; if you correctly predict what they're about to do, then you get to feel the satisfaction of being right, and if you incorrectly predict what they're about to do, you get to see something unexpected and new.) Work textbook problems that don't give you the answers. Ask your own questions and try to answer them; if you can't answer them yourself, go to the literature! (Or here, although preferably after the literature.)
Maintain a list of motivating examples and counterexamples in your area. For instance, I think a lot about graph theory; if I want to see if a conjecture holds for all graphs, one of the first things I'll do is ask whether it's true for a random graph. Next, I might ask if it's true for the Petersen graph, for the 5-cycle, for complete graphs or for trees, or for sparse random graphs (a.k.a. expanders, for all intents and purposes.) If I can prove my conjecture -- or even give a heuristic argument -- in these special cases, then I can start wondering if it holds in general.
Try to understand more than one way to approach your subject; not everyone who's worked in it thought about things the same way, and you should be flexible to accommodate their intuitions. Going back again to graph theory, there are several different ways to view a graph. The simplest (and most standard) is as a symmetric binary relation on a set. But you can also think of it geometrically as "dots connected by lines," or topologically as the 1-skeleton of a simplicial complex -- not coincidentally, these two definitions are closely related. Algebraically, you can think of a graph as a certain kind of groupoid, which is closely related to its definition as a symmetric matrix. (This is actually also related to the topological/geometric definition, although less obviously -- the groupoid is a discrete version of the fundamental groupoid of a space.) A separate algebraic approach is to think of graphs as "generalized Cayley graphs," which seems silly but actually pays off big-time when you work with graph products. In computer science, the best way to represent a sparse graph is often as an adjacency or incidence list; this formulation is very often useful in algorithms.
Answer: You might have an easier time remembering recognition principles instead of memorizing the precise statement of a theorem.  For example, you might want to remember that Theorem X can help you if you have data Y about structure Z and want to prove something else about it.  It is also useful to remember references this way, e.g., "This is the sort of result that would be proved in So-and-so's paper or works cited therein."  If you find yourself using a theorem a lot, chances are that you will become more comfortable with the precise statement with time.
If you want to understand more context surrounding a theorem, it helps to talk about said theorem with other people.  In addition to traditional avenues of conversation, this can include volunteering to lecture on it, blogging about it, or possibly asking questions on Math Overflow.
Answer: I agree with Gowers 100%. I would only that my goal is always to find my own easy and obvious proof and avoid all trickery and sophistication as much as possible. When I run into an obstacle that I can't seem to avoid no matter how hard I try, it is often because a new idea, trick, or technique really is needed. It is only then that I peek at the reference. If I've already been beating your head against it long enough, I'm usually able to locate and understand the critical point far more easily than if I were just reading the proof from beginning to end (which usually just puts me to sleep).
What I've found is that a surprising number of theorems can be proved using an approach that is easy and obvious. Most of the others can usually be proved using a straightforward approach but using some novel idea or trick at only one or two critical steps. I find that once I see the proof in that form, I find both the theorem and proof very easy to remember.
There are, however, always some really useful theorems, where the proofs are difficult and not very enlightening. Those you end up memorizing only because you use them often enough.
I don't see the point of trying to memorize a theorem before you use it a lot.
Comment: "If I've already been beating your head against it long enough ..."  I spend enough time beating my head against proofs myself, Deane.  I don't need you banging my head as well!
Answer: Don't memorize theorems. That said, if you want to remember what a theorem is saying then there are a few things I find helpful:

Try it out in a computable example. If it's a classification theorem, pick some object and follow the steps of the proof on your chosen object.
Build examples and counter-examples. The theorem likely has some conditions where it applies and doesn't apply. Try to figure out what examples force the hypotheses of the theorem.
Try to remove hypotheses. Maybe you can't find counter-examples for the hypotheses of the theorem because there aren't any! See if you can tweak the proof a little to remove a hypothesis.

After you've gone through a few of these you'll find yourself much more familiar with the theorem and its proof, and (hopefully) you'll find it easy to remember it.
Answer: Don't memorize theorems for the sake of memorizing them.  Learn the concepts, be inspired by the concepts, and then make them your own.
If you never find yourself inspired by the concepts, then perhaps mathematics is not the best direction for you.  There are many wonderful endeavors in life and each of us should find one that both pays the bills and fulfills our emotional needs.
Answer: Write a your personal "book-lecture notes" on the argument. This force you to to understand and refining many things that are under the concept and you dont see at simple reading. THen you have a more complete knowledge of arguments in a harmonic and memorizable way (as a  house that was new, but after  you have visited you know, or better is how you have bulding it)
Answer: Memorizing proofs of theorems is a wonderful way to check how good they are. If you find it difficult memorizing a proof, it possibly means it has not reached yet its best form; and trying to make it more easy to memorize may yield to a better comprehension of the theorem. Of course, there are technical proofs that are doomed to remain technical, but, ideally, we should be able to communicate a proof just by talking.
Answer: I would advise to study the proofs until plainly pure memory, BUT each time you repeat the reasons involved, the understanding switch always in ON position... that allows you to gain real and great intuitions, believe-me...
Ah! if the repetitions are in front of someone else -who is stuying the same- there'll be a lot of more FUN... put attention in that Gowers is telling us: ...eventualy you will be able of finding quick proofs of everything you masters!
Answer: Having taught calculus from Spivak a dozen times, I have most of the proofs memorized, and can proceed without notes.  In the 4th edition, he changed the proof of Taylor's theorem.  And there was a question, so I was going over the proof.  But it was the proof from the 3rd edition.  Of course I sometimes do alternate proofs, but this time it was not intended.
Answer: For a long time I wouldn't look at the proof, just the statement.  That's one level of understanding.  Then I started reading the proofs right away.  Many interesting details don't always appear in the statement.  That's another layer.
However, if you read a proof straight through, you get the false impression that each step follows logically from the last so the theorem is obvious.  Try to explain the proof to your friends or try to prove it yourself.  "Reading with your pencil" you can learn which steps are surprising and which are natural.
Answer: there are two kinds of theorems.  the proofs of some theorems are tricks and some are deep insights into the proposition.  memorize the trick theorems if you need to prove them and try to get deep into a proof of a theorem that is just a summary of the proofs thought and idea.

Memorizing theorems